Updating ruff ignore for previous fix

[henrydingliu]

Summary of Changes

Removing ruff ignore for core/slicing.py

Related GitHub Issue(s)

Cleans up after #1103

Additional Context for Reviewers

Checklist

• I passed tests locally for both code (uv run pytest) and documentation changes (uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest)

---

Note

Low Risk
Config-only change to lint exemptions; no application logic or runtime behavior is modified.

Overview
Tightens Ruff per-file-ignores for chainladder/core/slice.py so only E225 stays grandfathered; E712, E721, and E741 are no longer suppressed there.

That matches the lint cleanup from #1103—slice.py is now expected to satisfy those rules without exemptions.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit e177436. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[github-actions]

Pyright Type Completeness

View the full pyright --verifytypes output for this commit

Project (full chainladder package, at this PR's head): 15.1% of exported symbols fully typed (201 / 1333)

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Project (head)	201	111	1021	1333

Other symbols referenced but not exported by chainladder: 13

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Other (head)	3	1	9	13

Symbols without documentation:

• Functions without docstring: 321
• Functions without default param: 0
• Classes without docstring: 10

Patch (exported symbols added or changed by this PR): no exported symbol type-completeness changes detected.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.25%. Comparing base (272cbe1) to head (e177436).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1214   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.25%   91.25%           
=======================================
  Files          91       91           
  Lines        5400     5400           
  Branches      691      691           
=======================================
  Hits         4928     4928           
  Misses        338      338           
  Partials      134      134           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	91.25% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[priyam0k]

running ruff check chainladder/core/slice.py --config "lint.per-file-ignores={}" still flags 5 errors in slice.py (E721, E741, E712 at lines 70, 177, 222, 759).

should those 5 lines in slice.py be fixed first or aligned with E2 updates in #1204?

[henrydingliu]

running ruff check chainladder/core/slice.py --config "lint.per-file-ignores={}" still flags 5 errors in slice.py (E721, E741, E712 at lines 70, 177, 222, 759).

should those 5 lines in slice.py be fixed first or aligned with E2 updates in #1204?

addressing now after resolving conflict

[priyam0k]

looks good. thanks for updating the ignore rule. approving!

[kennethshsu]

Hey @priyam0k, so I think I might have left a hole in the security settings here. All is good with this PR so no worries, but I don't think we wanted non-codeowners to be able to have push access to main. This has been fixed.

Don't be alarmed if you cannot merge to main in the future, until you become a codeowner. Anyone else with write access (such as some of the CAS staff and CAS admin), only codeowners should be able to write to main.

Can you give it another try in another PR perhaps? Let me know if you see something surprising.

[priyam0k]

got it, thanks! when Henry asked about merge access in #1200, i used it on 2-3 approved PRs that henry and i worked on to help clear backlogs, though i usually try to avoid self-merging, approving as discussed.

good to know about the codeowner protection rule now. i still have the option to review and approve PRs, and i'll test out a new PR to see how the new setup works. appreciate the guidance.

[kennethshsu]

Yap you should have the ability to review and approve PRs, just not merge protected branches.

Let me know if you see something funny.

[priyam0k]

ok, i'll test the protected-branch restriction once there's an approved PR ready. don't have one open at the moment, but i'll keep an eye out and try it.

[priyam0k]

hey @kennethshsu , looks like i still have the active merge button on open PRs😅. I won't touch it, just sharing the screenshot

[kennethshsu]

I think in #1207 @henrydingliu approved so that's why you can merge.