Use ruff --check because ruff suggests it

[hmaarrfk]

No description provided.

[Vipitis]

I think it needs to be ruff check . it took me a few commits to get right too

[hmaarrfk]

of course.. but now it finds an error locally. hoping i have my local environment misconfigured to pass the CIs.

[Vipitis]

I think there are some rule changes in ruff that require one or two changes, but I that is already included in #30 and completely unrelated to the original change your proposed. feels a bit like https://edw519.posthaven.com/it-takes-6-days-to-change-1-line-of-code

[hmaarrfk]

Yeah you went about it a different way than I did.
https://github.com/pygfx/shadertoy/pull/30/files#diff-b29c89baf4e736d8da5743808d8a6f2485125dba8cde0cef3c58a34843d2ff6eR156

[hmaarrfk]

the reason i chose my strategy is that lists and tuples are often not guaranteed:

>>> [] == ()
False

[Vipitis]

the reason i chose my strategy is that lists and tuples are often not guaranteed:

>>> [] == ()
False

json can't hold tuple, it mangles them to a list. But I have used that function with dicts before so it's a good solution.
the CI doesn't yet run the API tests (we don't have a key set as repository secret) - but I confirmed it to work as expected locally.