Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 41.66667% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 92.08%. Comparing base (3c2ce1d) to head (054e601).
⚠️ Report is 112 commits behind head on master.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #816      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.97%   92.08%   -3.90%     
==========================================
  Files          47       49       +2     
  Lines        4699     4939     +240     
==========================================
+ Hits         4510     4548      +38     
- Misses        189      391     +202     

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

Hi @jonbrenas ,
Thanks for the feedback about using inheritance from AnophelesSampleMetadata. I tried that approach but ran into MRO conflicts and constructor issues when MyPy tried to resolve the inheritance chain for AnophelesDataResource.
Instead, I want to implement a TYPE_CHECKING solution:

from typing import TYPE_CHECKING

if TYPE_CHECKING:
    _url: str
    _fs: fsspec.AbstractFileSystem
    # ... other expected fields

This avoids redefining private fields (they're only declared for type checking) while preventing the inheritance conflicts. Do you think this approach is acceptable, or would you prefer I investigate the inheritance issues further?

Thanks @mohamed-laarej.

If type-checking works, go with that. We will have to modify the code to use inheritance at some point (to make sure that the package stays (somewhat) consistent) but there are better things for you to spend your time on.

Hi @jonbrenas ,

I've implemented the TYPE_CHECKING solution as discussed. This resolves the MyPy errors while avoiding inheritance conflicts. I understand we'll need to refactor to proper inheritance later, but this temporary solution allows me to proceed with the GWAS and Bayesian model work that depends on this PR.
Thanks for the guidance!