chore: update pre-commit hooks

[pre-commit-ci]

updates:

• github.com/astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit: v0.0.284 → v0.0.287
• github.com/adamchainz/blacken-docs: 1.15.0 → 1.16.0

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (c1c7c29) 99.70% compared to head (4da2b30) 99.70%.
Report is 9 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #3290   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    99.70%   99.70%           
========================================
  Files          248      248           
  Lines        18894    18899    +5     
========================================
+ Hits         18839    18844    +5     
  Misses          55       55           

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
pybamm/geometry/battery_geometry.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...m/models/full_battery_models/base_battery_model.py	99.54% <100.00%> (ø)
pybamm/models/submodels/base_submodel.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
pybamm/parameters/base_parameters.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

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

[Saransh-cpp]

Will check the failing CI

[agriyakhetarpal]

I just saw this one, I think we should ignore E721 here and keep using type() rather than using isinstance() to check types. I read up on this and this is because while isinstance() might be more Pythonic, it also checks across inheritance hierarchies (the type or subclasses of it) rather than just the type of the object at runtime. Though I guess you know more type theory than I do 😄

Nevertheless, this might be a bug we haven't caught because using isinstance() fails the unit tests too. I found this useful: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21894575/isinstancefoo-bar-vs-typefoo-is-bar

[Saransh-cpp]

I read up on this and this is because while isinstance() might be more Pythonic, it also checks across inheritance hierarchies

That is true, but the code is just checking if the variable is of type dict. The code breaking when an instance of any pybamm class is being type-checked would still make sense, but for Python classes, it should ideally not break.

Let's see if it breaks this time 🙁

[agriyakhetarpal]

Oh I had tested it locally and it had failed, and it has now failed here as well. Do you know what a suitable fix would be?

[Saransh-cpp]

The checks were failing as some PyBaMM classes are a subclass of dict. Suppressing the ruff errors should be okay in this case.