Enhance Documentation and Type Safety with Docstrings, Type Hints, and Comments

[dylanpulver]

In this PR, I have added docstrings, type hints, and comments throughout the repository. Utilizing ChatGPT has been very helpful for these tasks, significantly reducing the time required compared to writing everything manually. While I leveraged ChatGPT, I reviewed and adjusted its outputs to ensure accuracy and clarity.

Why are these changes important?

1. Docstrings:

• Clarity: Every function and class now has a descriptive docstring, making the codebase easier to understand for new contributors and maintainers. This improves the onboarding process and reduces the time needed to comprehend the code.
• Maintainability: Well-documented code is easier to maintain and modify. Future developers will have a clear understanding of the purpose and usage of each component, which helps prevent bugs and facilitates smoother updates.
• Code Quality: High-quality documentation is a hallmark of a professional codebase. It reflects our commitment to best practices and makes the repository more attractive to potential contributors.

2. Type Hints:

• Improved Readability: Type hints make the code more readable by explicitly stating the expected data types of function arguments and return values. This helps developers quickly grasp how to use functions correctly.
• Error Prevention: Type hints can catch potential errors early during development, reducing runtime errors and improving overall code reliability.
• IDE Support: Many modern IDEs leverage type hints to provide better code completion, linting, and debugging features, which enhances the developer experience and productivity.

Risk Assessment:

• Docstrings and Comments: These additions are low-risk as they do not affect code execution. They purely serve to enhance understanding and documentation.
• Type Hints: While type hints can affect execution, all tests are passing, indicating that the changes are safe. However, given the scope of these changes, I recommend applying them in smaller batches to facilitate easier review and integration.

Although it was more efficient to work on these changes within a single PR, I suggest reviewing and merging these changes incrementally to avoid a very large single review and to ensure thorough validation.

[davidlacho]

💅

[yeisonvargasf]

LGTM