Add UP007 to ruff ignore list.

[alexjbuck]

We should prefer Optional[T] to T | None. It is a more expressive statement and semantically is more appropriate for many cases with optional parameters.

Rule UP007 was originally designed to prefer T | None over Union[T,None] which makes sense. It has not been updated to account for the relatively new Optional[T] syntax.

Test plan (required)

Tested locally adding "UP007" to ruff.toml ignore. Ruff ceases false positive lints against Optional[T] syntax.

Closing issues

closes #336

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: b2e8dc0

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
@spear-ai/ruff-config	Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[psirenny]

The optimal linter settings should try to reduce the number of different ways the same code could be written. If we disable this rule, then int | None, Union[int, None] and Optional[int] are all possible variations developers could (probably will) add which, is not ideal for consistency. It's hard to detect so it likely wouldn't get picked up in code review.

I think on net, disabling the rule is probably worse. Although… I do admit that I'm not bothered by the union syntax 😆. Python doesn't have a concept of undefined, so the union syntax seems more accurate to me. That's probably my TypeScript bias leaking through though.

[alexjbuck]

I dislike the details of the outcome (I have to change a lot of Optional[T] occurrences). Optional creates the language concept that something can exist, or it can be None. I wouldn't say that undefined is the natural concept for a missing/non-existent Optional value. Even in Rust the Option<T> type is Some<T> or None.

However, I can get behind the idea of having one happy path for writing type hints, to increase consistency. I dislike Union types, why should a function be able return a Union[str, int]?? That's runtime madness. Anyway, I'll close this out and we can keep as is, such that T | None is the accepted way to write this, at least until UP007 is fixed to prefer Optional[T] for any T | None or Union[T, None] types,