more verbose coverage linting errors

[leifdenby]

Describe your changes

I was working on #323 and found that one of the functions I am introducing didn't have complete docstring coverage. With #252 we now use interogate to ensure that we have 100% coverage through a the pre-commit hook (which is great!) however, the current output you get when running uv run pre-commit doesn't actually tell you what functions/modules to fix (only the offending files):

My suggestion with this PR is to include the include module and function name from "interogate" pre-commit linting tool for functions/modules that are missing docstrings, like so:

No change to deps required

Maybe @Mohit-Lakra or @sadamov you have thoughts on this?

Issue Link

#252

Type of change

• 🐛 Bug fix (non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
• ✨ New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
• 💥 Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• 📖 Documentation (Addition or improvements to documentation)

Checklist before requesting a review

• My branch is up-to-date with the target branch - if not update your fork with the changes from the target branch (use pull with --rebase option if possible).
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• For any new/modified functions/classes I have added docstrings that clearly describe its purpose, expected inputs and returned values
• I have placed in-line comments to clarify the intent of any hard-to-understand passages of my code
• I have updated the README to cover introduced code changes
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have given the PR a name that clearly describes the change, written in imperative form (context).
• I have requested a reviewer and an assignee (assignee is responsible for merging). This applies only if you have write access to the repo, otherwise feel free to tag a maintainer to add a reviewer and assignee.

Checklist for reviewers

Each PR comes with its own improvements and flaws. The reviewer should check the following:

• the code is readable
• the code is well tested
• the code is documented (including return types and parameters)
• the code is easy to maintain

Author checklist after completed review

• I have added a line to the CHANGELOG describing this change, in a section
  reflecting type of change (add section where missing):
  • added: when you have added new functionality
  • changed: when default behaviour of the code has been changed
  • fixes: when your contribution fixes a bug
  • maintenance: when your contribution is relates to repo maintenance, e.g. CI/CD or documentation

Checklist for assignee

• PR is up to date with the base branch
• the tests pass
• (if the PR is not just maintenance/bugfix) the PR is assigned to the next milestone. If it is not, propose it for a future milestone.
• author has added an entry to the changelog (and designated the change as added, changed, fixed or maintenance)
• Once the PR is ready to be merged, squash commits and merge the PR.

[Mohit-Lakra]

@leifdenby, I support this idea. I faced the same issue while adding docstrings. Whenever pre-commit failed because of interrogate, I usually had to run interrogate --verbose afterwards to identify the files or functions causing the failure.
Showing that information directly in the pre-commit output would make debugging much easier and improve the developer experience.
😁😁

[sadamov]

👍