Make all zips explicitly strict or non-strict

[Armavica]

Description

• First commit: adding a strict=True argument to all zips when it doesn't produce mistakes in the test suite (464 of them), and strict=False to the others (28 of them)
• Second commit: enable ruff rule requiring and explicit strict argument to all zips
• Rest of the commits: transform the non-strict zips into strict zips (18 of them for now)

There remains 10 non-strict zips that I find difficult to understand.

Related Issue

• [ ] Closes #
• [x] Related to #840

Checklist

• [x] Checked that the pre-commit linting/style checks pass
• [ ] Included tests that prove the fix is effective or that the new feature works
• [ ] Added necessary documentation (docstrings and/or example notebooks)
• [x] If you are a pro: each commit corresponds to a relevant logical change

Type of change

• [ ] New feature / enhancement
• [ ] Bug fix
• [ ] Documentation
• [ ] Maintenance
• [ ] Other (please specify):

[ricardoV94]

@Armavica may be crazy work, but can we get a separate commit where we make the non-strict zips. That way it's easier to evaluate if it sounds correct or may be a bug somewhere?

Or I guess I can just ctrl+f for it

[Armavica]

@ricardoV94 Yes, I was planning to present this PR(s) in several steps:

• Commits that add strict=True to zips without tests failing
• Commits that add strict=True to zips and fix their failures (bugs)
• Commits that add strict=False to the remaining zips that need it, or rewrite them so they can be made strict How does that sound to you?

[ricardoV94]

Sounds good @Armavica

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.55556% with 19 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.12%. Comparing base (6de3151) to head (a4d7bb4). Report is 102 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pytensor/scan/rewriting.py	61.53%	5 Missing :warning:
pytensor/d3viz/formatting.py	0.00%	2 Missing :warning:
pytensor/ifelse.py	60.00%	2 Missing :warning:
pytensor/scan/op.py	87.50%	0 Missing and 2 partials :warning:
pytensor/compile/debugmode.py	50.00%	1 Missing :warning:
pytensor/link/basic.py	83.33%	1 Missing :warning:
pytensor/link/utils.py	66.66%	1 Missing :warning:
pytensor/printing.py	50.00%	1 Missing :warning:
pytensor/scalar/basic.py	80.00%	1 Missing :warning:
pytensor/tensor/blockwise.py	88.88%	1 Missing :warning:
... and 2 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #850   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   82.12%   82.12%           
=======================================
  Files         183      183           
  Lines       47986    47986           
  Branches     8644     8644           
=======================================
  Hits        39409    39409           
  Misses       6411     6411           
  Partials     2166     2166           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
pytensor/compile/builders.py	88.66% <100.00%> (ø)
pytensor/compile/function/pfunc.py	82.92% <100.00%> (ø)
pytensor/compile/function/types.py	80.48% <100.00%> (ø)
pytensor/gradient.py	77.57% <100.00%> (ø)
pytensor/graph/basic.py	88.69% <100.00%> (ø)
pytensor/graph/op.py	88.08% <ø> (ø)
pytensor/graph/replace.py	84.21% <100.00%> (ø)
pytensor/graph/rewriting/basic.py	70.43% <100.00%> (ø)
pytensor/link/c/basic.py	87.48% <100.00%> (ø)
pytensor/link/c/cmodule.py	60.48% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 59 more

[jessegrabowski]

Is this ready for review? Seems like all test are passing now

[Armavica]

Is this ready for review? Seems like all test are passing now

There are still ~~11~~ 10 instances of non-strict zips that produce errors if I make them strict, I need to investigate them one by one to see if that's expected behaviour or not.

[Armavica]

Actually, I find it difficult to make more progress here, so I am signalling this for review. I added 464 easy strict=True, 18 less immediate ones, and there are still 10 strict=False that I find the most difficult to understand. I think that they could be handled in another PR. This one introduces 464+18 = 482 safeguards, which I think is a good score :)

[Armavica]

@ricardoV94 Fixed all your points, let me know if there are more

[ricardoV94]

Is it ready @Armavica ?

[Armavica]

Yes I think I changed everything you pointed out, if not it's my mistake

[ricardoV94]

Thanks 🙏🙏

[Armavica]

Thank you for your review!