This was in production for 3 years

I'm usually for abstraction but this.
This is not ok

Explicit is better than implicit?

@jespersh I think the idea was to return the size. Note that nothing is returned.

I get why the function is redundant, but if you're gonna write the types in the doc comment anyway you're basically doing the same thing a programmer using a strictly typed language would do except you're also doing the part the language would do for them.

If python was statically typed u would’ve noticed this. Just saying….

@darrenrahnemoon how exactly? The expected return type is None and None is returned.

@620hun u can add lint rules to force devs to explicitly mention return types

@620hun If this was a strictly typed language the author would've specified that the function returns a number. Failing that, the first person who uses the function would've noticed that it returns void.

Seems correct to me. Does what is expected from its name …

if the function otherwise was called like “get and RETURN file size” and returns none, then it would be really wrong …

@gcavalcante8808 are you joking? Functions starting with "get" always indicate that something is returned. No need to add "getAndReturn" to it. It’s redundant and too long.

@Lensflare I’m joking yes haha

Certainly this is not a semantic question hahahaha

Being more serious now, a type check using mypy or a unit test could made the life smooth in this case.

I prefer the unit tests solution, as the return could be of a expected type but is still incorrect (this is a simple case, but you got the ideia I hope).

Sometimes wonder are these screenshots even real?