add 'flake-future-annotations' lint group

[danieleades]

allows using more modern typing syntax without sacrificing compatibility

[danieleades]

i've removed some type aliases on the basis that (especially with the modern syntax allowed by the from __future__ annotations import) they are:

• needless indirection
• no shorter or more readable than the explicit types
• not used consistently throughout the codebase anyway

personally i'm inclined to remove the 'sequence' type aliases as well but thought that might be ever so slightly more controversial

[danieleades]

i've gone ahead and removed the Sequence aliases, but it's in a separate commit for ease of review. That can be thrown away if it's not of interest

[yajo]

Lovely, thanks! ❤️

[yajo]

It seems there are test failures, could you fix them please?

[danieleades]

It seems there are test failures, could you fix them please?

hmm this is a bug i've not run into before. The from __future__ import annotations line in copier.cli causes the errors. I suspect that the @decorator decorator isn't playing nicely with it

it would be nice to remove decorator because it confounds type checking by mypy anyway

[danieleades]

@yajo could you rerun the CI for me?
I think i've resolved the issues by rebasing on #1513

[sisp]

@danieleades Would you mind addressing #1513 (review) and then rebasing this PR first?

[danieleades]

@danieleades Would you mind addressing #1513 (review) and then rebasing this PR first?

i've addressed that comment. I'll rebase this PR once that's merged

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (6b878c8) 97.46% compared to head (0cff91b) 97.34%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1506      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.46%   97.34%   -0.13%     
==========================================
  Files          48       48              
  Lines        4543     4557      +14     
==========================================
+ Hits         4428     4436       +8     
- Misses        115      121       +6     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.34% <100.00%> (-0.13%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[danieleades]

note for reviewers- I haven't been able to get the Nix environment working, so i'm not running the same ruff version locally and have avoided formatting, however i suspect that this PR should be formatted. I'm at an impasse.
Can a reviewer check this out and apply formatting using the Nix environment?

I take it the CI isn't checking the formatting? That would solve this problem for me- I could manually apply the changes if the CI showed a diff