Force user to use bool for delete_existing_job

[samwaseda]

I constantly fall into the trap to set a job name like:

job = pr.create.job.Lammps("lmp", strain)

without realising I had to write more parentheses. As the first argument after the job name is delete_existing_job, this often erases the job, which just shouldn't happen for a small typo.

[liamhuber]

I like fixing this problem, but I actually totally disagree with the attack. Let's rather go back to whatever __init__ is responsible and just add * to force the subsequent values to be keyword-only.

[samwaseda]

I like fixing this problem, but I actually totally disagree with the attack. Let's rather go back to whatever __init__ is responsible and just add * to force the subsequent values to be keyword-only.

That’s actually more or less what I suggested when the possibility to put multiple keywords was introduced. I cannot remember why it got rejected, but it got rejected at that time. Anyway wouldn’t it be a bit problematic concerning the backward compatibility?

[liamhuber]

That’s actually more or less what I suggested when the possibility to put multiple keywords was introduced. I cannot remember why it got rejected, but it got rejected at that time.

That's unfortunate, it sure seems like the right solution now...

Anyway wouldn’t it be a bit problematic concerning the backward compatibility?

🤦‍♂️ Ugh, yes. Ok, I'll review this as-is. Stupid backwards compatibility.

[liamhuber]

So the the caveat of our preceding conversation about how I wish we were in a different timeline, lgtm.

The only thing I would recommend is to make a custom error class so that when you're running the behaviour tests you can be 100% sure you're catching exactly the value error you're trying to catch and not accidentally passing because some other, unrelated value error is getting raised.