Fix signatures for ThingClient

[julianstirling]

Working on improving the signatures in the LabThings Client. This enables documentation generators to understand client better.

[barecheck]

Barecheck - Code coverage report

Total: 96.23%

Your code coverage diff: -0.11% ▾

Uncovered files and lines

File	Lines
src/labthings_fastapi/client/__init__.py	63, 66-67, 178, 250-253, 369, 430, 432, 446, 450, 480, 573

[rwb27]

I've not read this in any detail, but this is something I've wanted to do for a while, and if you're making a start on it that's amazing. I made a start in #89, though that is very basic. There's definitely some discussion needed to figure out the right strategy: I feel like using the JSONSchema/Thing Description is the right thing to do, but there's some inherent ambiguity in there and I've never been 100% sure what the best way is to resolve that (e.g. should an object become a dict or a Model or a TypedDict).

Obviously dynamic and static code generation have some significant differences, but my hope is that we can keep the two cases close enough in implementation that we don't end up with too much duplication.