Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.11%. Comparing base (e3ab6c1) to head (c3d9dbe).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3209      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.10%   97.11%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          57       57              
  Lines        9711     9713       +2     
  Branches     1759     1758       -1     
==========================================
+ Hits         9430     9433       +3     
  Misses        168      168              
+ Partials      113      112       -1     

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

@stefan6419846 could you fix the two Ruff errors (2 fixable with the --fix option)? I do not have Ruff installed.

could you fix the two Ruff errors

Just use return None instead of return in these cases if it is a correct detection (as indicated in the help for the violation). If the detection is wrong, we would have to check manually anyway.

@stefan6419846 the return None is needed so we can remove RET503. Can you think of a way to reach this line, as otherwise code coverage is reduced.

I guess root = DictionaryObject({NameObject('/Next'): None}) could work, but AFAIK this branch should not be reachable with real PDF files as None is no PDF object. See #3209 (comment) as well.

I have marked it as pragma: no cover, as agree with you, I think is unreachable with real PDFs. Outlines are conceptually not difficult, and maybe a refactor of them may be useful.