Rectify return type hints in logprob module rewrites

[AryanNanda17]

Description

Related Issue

• Closes Rectify Return type hint #6811

Checklist

• 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)
• If you are a pro: each commit corresponds to a relevant logical change

Type of change

• Other (please specify):

The return type hint is wrong in many files. MeasurableComparision is an Op, but what is returned are TensorVariables whose node has that Op. This needs to be rectified for all the functions which intend to find a measurable op.

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pymc--7125.org.readthedocs.build/en/7125/

[AryanNanda17]

@larryshamalama and @ricardoV94 please look into this issue.

[AryanNanda17]

All the pre commits test are passing:-

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (94020c9) 90.17% compared to head (fb1c48f) 90.20%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7125      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.17%   90.20%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         101      101              
  Lines       16932    16961      +29     
==========================================
+ Hits        15269    15299      +30     
+ Misses       1663     1662       -1     

Files	Coverage Δ
pymc/logprob/binary.py	94.31% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
pymc/logprob/censoring.py	95.69% <100.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
pymc/logprob/checks.py	90.74% <100.00%> (+0.17%)	⬆️
pymc/logprob/cumsum.py	91.17% <100.00%> (+0.26%)	⬆️
pymc/logprob/tensor.py	76.85% <100.00%> (+0.19%)	⬆️

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

[AryanNanda17]

@larryshamalama and @ricardoV94 why did some tests failed.

It shows this file failed but I didn't even change this file.

[ricardoV94]

@AryanNanda17 this issue is already been worked by another contributor in #7013

We will give priority to the first one as the contributor mentioned he still wants to work on it

[AryanNanda17]

@larryshamalama You could have told me this when I raised this issue #7093 but I kept working on it to figure out what was going wrong.

[ricardoV94]

Unfortunately, I missed the duplicated work when you opened that first PR. I am sorry.

The info about related PRs should show up in the original issue, but I don't usually check if a PR is already linked when someone opens a new one.

[ricardoV94]

I see @larryshamalama mentioned an option of adding people as co-authors. We can also do that, specially since this PR is already complete it seems.

I'll check the unrelated failing test.
Could you update the title of the PR to the old one?

[AryanNanda17]

@ricardoV94 any idea why the tests failed?

[ricardoV94]

It's failing elsewhere, not this PR's fault

[AryanNanda17]

@ricardoV94 and @larryshamalama thanks for looking into the issue.
Let me know if any update is required.
Edit - Could you please add old PR labels to this PR?

[larryshamalama]

We're looking into the failed test in #7136

[welcome]

]
Congrats on merging your first pull request! 🎉 We here at PyMC are proud of you! 💖 Thank you so much for your contribution 🎁