Support union

[SvenWarnke]

This addresses #41 . It allows Union types again by simply removing the raising of the exception. I also handled 2 test that showcase the behavior.

[mivade]

I can see there being utility in union types (although I personally would rarely use that feature), but I'm not sure if just passing through the value like this is the right way to go. Maybe if it's not an optional type we should require a type given in the metadata? Either that or some special flag to just skip the logic of determining the type entirely.

[jcal-15]

I can see there being utility in union types (although I personally would rarely use that feature), but I'm not sure if just passing through the value like this is the right way to go. Maybe if it's not an optional type we should require a type given in the metadata? Either that or some special flag to just skip the logic of determining the type entirely.

I see I just said what you said, but less articulately. 😄

[mivade]

It looks like CI is failing because of Black checks. Once tests are passing this looks good to merge.

We also need to update the documentation to explain how to use union types with some examples. I am happy to merge this as is though and create a new issue to track that.

[SvenWarnke]

I ran Black on the code, I hope it will pass now.

[mivade]

Thanks!