Thanks! Just like in os, we should just use _typeshed.StrOrBytesPath here.

I haven't looked too closely at this PR, but (unlike os), pathlib only supports string paths, not bytes paths, so it should probably be _typeshed.StrPath rather than _typeshed.StrOrBytesPath here?

The arguments to these functions skip any pathlib handling and just call the underlying functions, so bytes are accepted.

The arguments to these functions skip any pathlib handling and just call the underlying functions, so bytes are accepted.

My worry is that even if bytes paths technically work for this method, you probably shouldn't be using bytes paths with anything pathlib-y, it's bound to bite you at some point.

But no strong opinion; happy for us to go with StrOrBytesPath since it is allowed by the implementation, at least at the moment.

I have made the requested change to StrOrBytesPath.

Diff from mypy_primer, showing the effect of this PR on open source code:

bandersnatch (https://github.com/pypa/bandersnatch)
+ src/bandersnatch_storage_plugins/swift.py: note: In member "symlink_to" of class "SwiftPath":
+ src/bandersnatch_storage_plugins/swift.py:415: error: Signature of "symlink_to" incompatible with supertype "Path"  [override]
+ src/bandersnatch_storage_plugins/swift.py:415: note:      Superclass:
+ src/bandersnatch_storage_plugins/swift.py:415: note:          def symlink_to(self, target: Union[str, bytes, PathLike[str], PathLike[bytes]], target_is_directory: bool = ...) -> None
+ src/bandersnatch_storage_plugins/swift.py:415: note:      Subclass:
+ src/bandersnatch_storage_plugins/swift.py:415: note:          def symlink_to(self, src: Union[Path, str], target_is_directory: bool = ..., src_container: Optional[str] = ..., src_account: Optional[str] = ...) -> None