Tech debt: BasePartialBatchProcessor response() and process_partial_response() should have the same response typing

[adriantomas]

Why is this needed?

This method https://github.com/aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-python/blob/develop/aws_lambda_powertools/utilities/batch/base.py#L256 and https://github.com/aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-python/blob/024c3f2ed8858643a2d303e5c3928aa58e168c7c/aws_lambda_powertools/utilities/batch/decorators.py#L128C16-L128C16

Should have the same response typing

powertools-lambda-python/aws_lambda_powertools/utilities/batch/types.py

Line 32 in 024c3f2

class PartialItemFailureResponse(TypedDict):

So that users can easily guess that using one method or another produces the same output.

Which area does this relate to?

Static typing

Suggestion

I can submit a PR with the changes.

Acknowledgment

• This request meets Powertools for AWS Lambda (Python) Tenets
• Should this be considered in other Powertools for AWS Lambda languages? i.e. Java, TypeScript, and .NET

[boring-cyborg]

Thanks for opening your first issue here! We'll come back to you as soon as we can.
In the meantime, check out the #python channel on our Powertools for AWS Lambda Discord: Invite link

[leandrodamascena]

Hello @adriantomas! I totally agree that response() should have the same response type as process_partial_response(). When we refactored the Batch Process utility with the new process_partial_response() function, we created this type to make it easier for clients to access the properties of this response and we forget to annotate response() function, sorry for that 😞.

Please, send a PR to fix this and we can merge :)

Thanks a lot

[github-actions]

⚠️COMMENT VISIBILITY WARNING⚠️

This issue is now closed. Please be mindful that future comments are hard for our team to see.

If you need more assistance, please either tag a team member or open a new issue that references this one.

If you wish to keep having a conversation with other community members under this issue feel free to do so.