Require named arguments to fix pylint too-many-positional-arguments

[clelange]

Fixes #272

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://hepdata-lib--273.org.readthedocs.build/en/273/

[clelange]

This needs some more fixes in other places, I had only addressed the errors that showed up first in the tests.

[GraemeWatt]

@clelange : thanks for addressing #272. I noticed the problem yesterday, but I didn't get around to opening a PR. Although it's better programming practice, it's a breaking change to reassign some arguments from positional to keyword-only. Do you anticipate this will break user code? It might be better in the long run to reassign some arguments and I leave the decision to you, but a simple fix would be to add # pylint: disable=too-many-positional-arguments to the offending functions.

[clelange]

Hi @GraemeWatt -- while making some of the changes, I was also thinking about whether this breaks user code or not. So far, it looks like it's only smaller things that would be easy to fix. Forcing more named function parameters would actually make the code better readable and usable, so I'm somewhat in favour of implementing the fixes rather than silencing the linter.

[clelange]

It really looks like the changes are minor and good to have even though it might break for some edge cases where people don't like named arguments.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.42%. Comparing base (79091d0) to head (ab46b9d).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #273   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.42%   90.42%           
=======================================
  Files           5        5           
  Lines        1117     1117           
  Branches      254      254           
=======================================
  Hits         1010     1010           
  Misses         78       78           
  Partials       29       29           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests-3.10	90.42% <100.00%> (ø)
unittests-3.11	90.42% <100.00%> (ø)
unittests-3.6	90.14% <100.00%> (ø)
unittests-3.7	90.14% <100.00%> (ø)
unittests-3.8	90.24% <100.00%> (ø)
unittests-3.9	90.24% <100.00%> (ø)

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

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

[GraemeWatt]

Thanks, this looks good. I agree that it is better practice not to allow keyword arguments to be given as positional arguments.