Pekka Klärck

Yeah, executing a directory and having `__init__.robot` files on different levels makes it easy to have whatever granularity with setups and teardowns you need. I also agree sending emails etc....

We already have several keywords for this kind of validation in the BuiltIn library and other standard libraries. Check out keywords with `Should` in their name like `Should Be Equal`....

I agree the error is a bit misleading. The keyword isn't called so the error you propose wouldn't work well either, though. I think it could be changed to this:...

If the keyword would be called, it would be ok to have an empty test if your template didn't have any mandatory parameters. That's not what we want, we want...

Tests always needing some content has been a design decision. It would look a bit odd if something like ``` *** Test Cases *** Example ``` was valid. It's true...

New tests for generics with custom converters like `List[UsDate]` should probably be added to the `custom_converters.robot` suite. The `CustomConverters.py` library used there contains converts that can be used.

Don't have time to look at the changes now and probably not before Friday, but a quick comment about the syntax we support. I somewhat strongly believe we should allow...

Converters could probably create converters for their values already in `__init__` similarly as `CombinedConverter` initializes `self.converters`. With lists and sets it could be something like this: ```python types = getattr(type_,...

I prototyped converting `TypedDict` items (#4477) and had a similar problem as here with properly reporting errors when converting an individual item fails. My solution was adding new `kind='Argument'` argument...

Ok, let's go with the simple error reporting enhancement I proposed above. That's something that can be enhanced in future versions if needed. Right now we need to concentrate on...