Replaced_unified_repr with repr #20982

[smeet07]

fixing repr issue

Please add a meaningful description for your change here

---

Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

• Choose reviewer(s) and mention them in a comment (R: @username).
• Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
• Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
• If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI.

[github-actions]

Assigning reviewers. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer:

R: @yeandy for label python.

Available commands:

• stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
• remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
• waiting on author - shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)

The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments).

[yeandy]

Can you please give more context on this change?

[github-actions]

Reminder, please take a look at this pr: @yeandy

[smeet07]

Can you please give more context on this change?

Can you please give more context on this change?

Tried method overriding but didn't do it properly, also new to open source so I don't know what happens next

[yeandy]

Thanks for the info, and contributing to Beam! In general, you're doing the right steps. You did take-issue on the original issue, and also noted the issue number in the title. I didn't realize at first; hence my question about context. I would be helpful to link the issue in the description of this PR 😄

The next steps would to address any PreCommit checks that are failing. You have a few

You can see what is wrong if you click under Details.

We have a bot to automatically assign reviewers. (This time, it was me). You can also manually choose a reviewer if you know someone in particular you want to review.

However, @AnandInguva and I are actually working on a bunch of changes (#22995) in preparation to support Python 3.10. While working, I had identified the need to address the issue (#20982) that you originally took, and made a PR (AnandInguva#4) already. I guess we accidentally started working on this at the same time 😅

I'd say you're welcome to continue work on this PR (and also take inspiration from what I've done). Depending on how fast/slow our 3.10 work takes (I can update you via this PR), you may be able to make this fix into master before us? But I also don't want there to be redundant work being done.

@AnandInguva How do you think we should approach this?

[AnandInguva]

Both of you, Thanks for working on this. This is a blocker for Python 3.10 and it would be better if we could do it sooner than later. Andy has started some work and I think is about to be done with it.

[smeet07]

Thank you for guiding @yeandy @AnandInguva , I guess I'll leave this issue to you both and try contributing to some other issue

[smeet07]

Also is there any way to see whether the checks are failing before creating a pr?

[yeandy]

Yes. It's at the bottom of this page. You can click on Details on the right side to see more info for any particular test.