fix(actions): use mutable generic container

[simbuerg]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 50.74% // Head: 52.21% // Increases project coverage by +1.46% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (3e1e2b3) compared to base (cd65176).
Patch coverage: 86.95% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #508      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   50.74%   52.21%   +1.46%     
==========================================
  Files         124      124              
  Lines        8207     8161      -46     
  Branches     1274     1263      -11     
==========================================
+ Hits         4165     4261      +96     
+ Misses       3882     3725     -157     
- Partials      160      175      +15     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
benchbuild/utils/actions.py	54.74% <86.95%> (-0.97%)	⬇️
benchbuild/environments/service_layer/ensure.py	63.63% <0.00%> (-18.19%)	⬇️
benchbuild/environments/service_layer/ui.py	57.14% <0.00%> (-14.29%)	⬇️
...enchbuild/environments/service_layer/messagebus.py	75.00% <0.00%> (-2.50%)	⬇️
benchbuild/environments/adapters/common.py	60.00% <0.00%> (-1.67%)	⬇️
benchbuild/environments/entrypoints/cli.py	85.52% <0.00%> (+1.31%)	⬆️
benchbuild/utils/download.py	22.56% <0.00%> (+4.87%)	⬆️
benchbuild/environments/domain/model.py	89.74% <0.00%> (+5.98%)	⬆️
...chbuild/environments/service_layer/unit_of_work.py	76.64% <0.00%> (+5.98%)	⬆️
benchbuild/environments/service_layer/handlers.py	86.79% <0.00%> (+16.98%)	⬆️
... and 4 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[vulder]

Overall stuff still runs

[vulder]

Here is no base class here, so super does not exist

[vulder]

You want this still bound on Step?

Ok, from my side I have two "issues" here.
a) Protocols can only inherit protocols, so not Step
b) I change the call function

b -> I can fix by calling my function a different name

[simbuerg]

No not necessarily.
This seems like a minimal patch to improve type-safety in utils/actions.py.

Removing the bound requires more changes by all MultiStep descendants:

• Any
• Experiment
• RequireAll

I haven't actually thought about implementing them there yet, so that might be a minimal change as well.