Added missing-return-doc message example

[matusvalo]

Type of Changes

	Type
	🐛 Bug fix
	✨ New feature
	🔨 Refactoring
✓	📜 Docs

Description

Related #5953

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

Suggested change

	def integer_sum(a, b):
	"""Returns sum of two integers
	:param a: first integer
	:type a: int
	:param b: second integer
	:type b: int
	:return: sum of parameters a and b
	:rtype: int
	def integer_sum(a, b) -> int:
	"""Returns sum of two integers
	:param a: first integer
	:type a: int
	:param b: second integer
	:type b: int
	:return: sum of parameters a and b

I'm wondering if this does not make more sense to use the builtin typing directly.

[matusvalo]

I'm wondering if this does not make more sense to use the builtin typing directly.

I stick closely to checker documentation https://pylint.pycqa.org/en/latest/technical_reference/extensions.html#pylint-extensions-docparams so I used comments. But I can rework it to annotation types...

[matusvalo]

I suppose then also other examples should be reworked to use python typing right?

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

I think this checker doc was done a long time ago (when 'real' typing was not available yet) possibly with python 2 compatibility in mind. The other example would need to be modified too but let's hear what @DanielNoord think before changing everything :)

[DanielNoord]

Shit sorry, I merged #6339 before seeing this.

I agree with @Pierre-Sassoulas that it would probably be better to use python typing as that makes our documentation a little more future proof.
WOuld you be able to update the PRs @matusvalo?

Perhaps the fix to update the changes in #6339 can be included in one of the other open PRs (perhaps this one)?

[matusvalo]

I will update them no worries