Resolve some nits in the codebase

[DiamondJoseph]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 97.14286% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 92.17%. Comparing base (86c5905) to head (b50fb79).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/blueapi/__main__.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #708   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.17%   92.17%           
=======================================
  Files          35       35           
  Lines        1803     1803           
=======================================
  Hits         1662     1662           
  Misses        141      141           

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

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests

[DiamondJoseph]

(some of these type: ignores may need to be reinstated for #619

[callumforrester]

I like this! Just a few small comments.

[callumforrester]

Honestly I never know what to do with type annotations for mocks. If you annotated with the mocked type you get code completion for its methods but you don't get assert_called_once et al. and vice versa.

I tend to annotate based on whether I'm using the real methods or the mock utilities more often but we should probably have a cohesive answer. I've tried using Mock(spec=ActualType) before but vscode doesn't seem to pick that up.

[tpoliaw]

Could all these use raises(match='pattern') instead of having a separate assert? Something like

with pytest.raises(KeyError, match=NOT_FOUND):
    client.get_plan("Not exists")

[DiamondJoseph]

Yep, think this is done in #655- after that and #619 I'll rebase this and see what still needs to be done