Remove no_type_check_decorator from _typing_names

[Daraan]

Resolves: #700

Tested with 3.15.0a4

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 96.74%. Comparing base (a7610ef) to head (adf7fc9).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #723      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.38%   96.74%   -0.64%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines        7689     7690       +1     
==========================================
- Hits         7488     7440      -48     
- Misses        201      250      +49     

Flag	Coverage Δ
3.10	?
3.10.4	88.98% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
3.11	88.21% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
3.11.0	87.45% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
3.12	?
3.12.0	88.15% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
3.13	?
3.13.0	82.39% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
3.14	?
3.9	?
3.9.12	89.69% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
pypy3.10	88.81% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
pypy3.11	88.07% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
pypy3.9	89.52% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/typing_extensions.py	93.09% <100.00%> (-0.86%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[srittau]

This is technically a breaking change. I wonder whether we shouldn't add a small stub for this for Python 3.15+, so that importing that name doesn't break.

[srittau]

Since this was never implemented by any type checkers as far as I know, we could even skip the import for all Python versions and just add something like (pseudo-code):

def __getattr__(name):
    if name == "no_type_check_decorator":
        # print deprecation warning
        return lambda f: f

or just

@deprecated("...")
def no_type_check_decorator(f):
    return f

[JelleZijlstra]

I think this is fine as is. It's OK if behavior changes depending on the Python version.

[Daraan]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. ✅ Project coverage is 96.74%. Comparing base (a7610ef) to head (adf7fc9).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #723      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.38%   96.74%   -0.64%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines        7689     7690       +1     
==========================================
- Hits         7488     7440      -48     
- Misses        201      250      +49     

Flag Coverage Δ
3.10 ?
3.10.4 88.98% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
3.11 88.21% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
3.11.0 87.45% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
3.12 ?
3.12.0 88.15% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
3.13 ?
3.13.0 82.39% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
3.14 ?
3.9 ?
3.9.12 89.69% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
pypy3.10 88.81% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
pypy3.11 88.07% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
pypy3.9 89.52% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/typing_extensions.py 93.09% <100.00%> (-0.86%) ⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

It appears coverage did not run on 3.14 hence the unexpected misses.

[hroncok]

This makes the test pass.