Update Pathlib usage and docstrings

[willGraham01]

Description

What is this PR

• Bug fix
• Addition of a new feature
• Other

Why is this PR needed?

Standardises our imports of pathlib Paths and avoids importing the whole module when we only need the Path class.

What does this PR do?

• Standardises our import of Path to from pathlib import Path across the package.
• Updates / adds docstrings to a few functions that reply on Path inputs.

References

No issues, but picked up on in a comment on #65 (comment)

How has this PR been tested?

Tests pass locally. No package functionality should be changed, either.

Is this a breaking change?

No.

Does this PR require an update to the documentation?

N/A

Checklist:

• The code has been tested locally
• Tests have been added to cover all new functionality (unit & integration)
• The documentation has been updated to reflect any changes
• The code has been formatted with pre-commit

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.54%. Comparing base (3b632c2) to head (27cdba4).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #68      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.56%   90.54%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          35       35              
  Lines        1356     1364       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits         1228     1235       +7     
- Misses        128      129       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[willGraham01]

CodeCov doesn't like my TYPE_CHECKING imports in files where we don't actually need to instantiate a Path object.

Happy to change those to regular imports on reviewer's request to avoid the red-cross-of-doom 😅

[K-Meech]

Looks good to me! Just a few minor changes I noted in the comments. For the TYPE_CHECKING imports I wonder if there's a way to exclude these lines from codecov as coverage can do? Otherwise, probably best to just use standard imports to avoid the red cross 😅

[willGraham01]

For the TYPE_CHECKING imports I wonder if there's a way to exclude these lines from codecov nedbat/coveragepy#831 (comment)?

Went for the straight-up import solution 😅 The solution given in the linked issue seems to imply that the .coveragerc file should be on a per-repo basis, and I don't want to escalate this PR to setting a precedent for the whole project. The #pragma: no cov solution is also ugly to include in each of the blocks (and could very easily get misplaced after a few edits if imports are moved around / changed).

[K-Meech]

Looks good! For consistency, I just highlighted a few areas where quotes are no longer needed around the types.

[willGraham01]

where quotes are no longer needed around the types

VSCode linter why have you forsaken me 😭

[K-Meech]

Looks good! I'll go ahead and merge now.