chore: update pre-commit hooks

[pre-commit-ci]

updates:

• github.com/charliermarsh/ruff-pre-commit: v0.0.254 → v0.0.255
• github.com/codespell-project/codespell: v2.2.2 → v2.2.4

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2313 (2fe0706) into main (e316869) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files

[agoose77]

@jpivarski you might want to weigh in here; we have non-standard code style w.r.t truthiness. Do you want to relax that and let ruff clean it up, or would you prefer to instruct ruff to ignore these patterns?

[jpivarski]

I really want ruff to let us avoid truthiness. I go with the flow on a lot of Python things that I'm ambivalent about, but this weak typing is pretty dangerous. If it's coupled with actually-checked type-checking, then it wouldn't be too bad. Maybe when we have enough type-hints to run MyPy and some_list always definitely refers to a list, we can replace

if some_list == []:

with

if some_list:

As long as there's a possibility that some bug would send a None, (), 0, or False here, I'd want the code to be explicit.

I put that ignore in the project-wide pyproject.toml, but there are other ruff complaints that are worth individualized noqa, such as the one where a loop variable name is overwritten to refine it (in other words, it retains the meaning, but different user-supplied types are regularized to a preferred format), it's good to have the noisiness of a noqa to point that out.

[agoose77]

As long as there's a possibility that some bug would send a None, (), 0, or False here, I'd want the code to be explicit.

In all, I don't mind being more ambiguous in these cases; most of the time I would err on the side of "the Programmer should understand truthiness", and checks for is None are a separate class of usage. That said, I am happy to (and indeed, already do) apply a different code style for Awkward.

Let me see which rules we need to turn on/off.