378b ruff config update dbodor

[DaniBodor]

Additional updates to ruff settings on top of #384.

Extra changes:

• also perform ruff formatting check in githook and linting workflow
• removed explicit excluded file types
  • and will be read from ruff defaults instead
• output format is defaulted to "concise"
  • this used to be the default, but it changed to "full" as per ruff 0.5 and it's very lengthy.
• use ruff docstring convention rather than explicitly setting which docstring rules to ignore
• Turned on (almost) all linting rules, instead of hand-picking the main ones.
  • This may be slightly contentious, but I find that in a new project it's quite manageable (if applied to an existing project, it may be overwhelming)
  • Some rules are suppressed, which are the ones I have found to be over the top. I realize that this decision is somewhat arbitrary, but still think it works.
• Updated actions/checkout and actions/setup-python to their newest versions
  • this is a bit of scope creep...

[egpbos]

384 merged, this can now be rebased on main.

[egpbos]

Damn, sorry for the sloppy review, but there is another ruff issue we missed in #384: in the build action, there is a linting workflow that also calls ruff .. That should become ruff check .. Can someone perhaps add a fix for that in this PR?

[sjvrijn]

Damn, sorry for the sloppy review, but there is another ruff issue we missed in #384: in the build action, there is a linting workflow that also calls ruff .. That should become ruff check .. Can someone perhaps add a fix for that in this PR?

@egpbos As far as I can tell, that's already in this PR, see build.yml

[sjvrijn]

@egpbos Issue was in the test, not the build.yml itself. Test are passing now. I've made the choice to ignore the newly raised issues in tests and docs/conf.py, but to add type hints to the sample package file rather than ignoring the type annotation issues all together. I think that making type checking optional and/or deferring to another tool like mypy should be a separate issue

[DaniBodor]

@egpbos , can this be merged now?

[egpbos]

Reviewer approved, so go for it :)