GitHub user rok edited a comment on the discussion: A new home for pyarrow-stubs?
Another update. Following received feedback I've created a [second draft](https://github.com/rok/arrow/pull/45). This one takes the approach of adding pyarrow-stubs, then checks annotations on a single test file (test_compute.py) using `pyright`. To make checks pass stubs are fixed in the PR. A question I have here is: do we work on a feature branch until we have full coverage (annotation checks pass on all files in `arrow/python/pyarrow`) or do we merge partial (when e.g. `test_xyz.py` passes checks)? The idea would be that CI would report stub check failures and we can enforce annotations remain in sync. Type coverage, stub linter and pre-commit hook were some ideas suggested so far that can come later. I would propose we inline annotations where possible - @mpelko did a proof of concept [here](https://github.com/mpelko/arrow/pull/2). If there are no significant objections I'll open a PR against the main repo and start a ML discussion. GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/arrow/discussions/45919#discussioncomment-14182963 ---- This is an automatically sent email for [email protected]. To unsubscribe, please send an email to: [email protected]
