Enhance repo_type_and_id_from_hf_id of hf_api

[pulltheflower]

Related to issue #3494

[HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev]

The docs for this PR live here. All of your documentation changes will be reflected on that endpoint. The docs are available until 30 days after the last update.

[Wauplin]

@bot /style

[github-actions]

Style bot fixed some files and pushed the changes.

[pulltheflower]

@Wauplin I noticed a large number of build and test failures, which seem to be related to network issues. Could this possibly be connected to my changes? I’d appreciate it if you could take a look, thank you!

[Wauplin]

I noticed a large number of build and test failures, which seem to be related to network issues.

Yes that was due to temporary issues on our staging infra. It is now resolved.

Note that there are still a few issues due to this PR. See all the

FAILED ../tests/test_hf_api.py::RepoUrlTest::test_repo_url_class - ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1)
FAILED ../tests/test_hf_api.py::ParseHFUrlTest::test_repo_type_and_id_from_hf_id_on_wrong_values - AssertionError: ValueError not raised
FAILED ../tests/test_hf_api.py::RepoUrlTest::test_repo_url_endpoint - ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1)
FAILED ../tests/test_hf_api.py::RepoUrlTest::test_repo_url_namespace - ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1)

looking into the details, this line is now failing.

Could you have a look at it please?

[pulltheflower]

@Wauplin Sorry for taking so long to fix the tests. Could you please trigger the pipeline again?

[pulltheflower]

@Wauplin There were still some failing tests in the previous commit, but I’ve fixed them in the latest commit.

[pulltheflower]

@Wauplin The test is passing successfully in my local environment but failing in the CI/CD pipeline. Could you please take a look and help identify what might be causing this discrepancy?

[Wauplin]

Great @pulltheflower ! All tests are now passing correctly (the failing CI was not related to your PR). Last tiny comment, could you address the regex optimization comment below? Apart from that implementation looks good and tests are nice (I've also played with it a bit locall)

[Wauplin]

All good! Thanks for the iterations :)

(failing CI is unrelated)