[Issue #12485][Python Client] and [Issue #12486][Python Client]

[tsturzl]

(If this PR fixes a github issue, please add Fixes #<xyz>.)

Fixes #12485
Fixes #12486

Motivation

I found several issues in the python client. First there were some None checks which were too inclusive and didn't allow the use of 0 values for numeric types as well as some other odd behaviors. Secondly JsonSchema did not allow a Record to be used more than once since it deleted fields which wouldn't exist on the second use.

Modifications

1. Fix None checks.
2. Improved formatting to comply with Python's PEP 8 Styling Guide
3. Fix reusing Records with JsonSchema. Copy out data before modifying it. Check keys before deleting.

Verifying this change

• Make sure that the change passes the CI checks.

(Please pick either of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

• The Python Client has no test coverage currently

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

If yes was chosen, please highlight the changes

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
• The public API: (yes / no)
• The schema: (yes / no / don't know)
• The default values of configurations: (yes / no)
• The wire protocol: (yes / no)
• The rest endpoints: (yes / no)
• The admin cli options: (yes / no)
• Anything that affects deployment: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

Check the box below and label this PR (if you have committer privilege).

Need to update docs?

• doc-required

  (If you need help on updating docs, create a doc issue)

• no-need-doc

  These changes don't change how you use the client, they just fix the behavior to be more inline with what would be expected

• doc

  (If this PR contains doc changes)

[eolivelli]

@tsturzl:Thanks for your contribution. For this PR, do we need to update docs?
(The PR template contains info about doc, which helps others know more about the changes. Can you provide doc-related info in this and future PR descriptions? Thanks)

[eolivelli]

@tsturzl:Thanks for your contribution. For this PR, do we need to update docs?
(The PR template contains info about doc, which helps others know more about the changes. Can you provide doc-related info in this and future PR descriptions? Thanks)

[eolivelli]

@tsturzl:Thanks for providing doc info!

[merlimat]

The re-indent and changes to " vs ' should be in a different PR.

We should have one commit that just fixed the single problem described.

[merlimat]

Fixes #12485
Fixes #12486

@tsturzl Thanks for the fixes. Ideally, we try to always have different fixes in different PRs, to make the review process easier.