fix: correct FRLM flow coverage annotation

[samay2504]

This PR fixes issue #524 by updating FRLM.get_flow_coverage() to use a dictionary return annotation that matches its actual return value, and it adds a small test assertion that checks the returned object type, which keeps the public API contract explicit for type checkers and editor tooling without changing runtime behaviour.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes the public type contract for FRLM.get_flow_coverage() so its return annotation matches the actual runtime return value (a summary dictionary), and it adds a small test assertion to keep that contract explicit.

Changes:

• Update FRLM.get_flow_coverage() return type annotation from None to dict[str, float].
• Add a test assertion verifying get_flow_coverage() returns a dict.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
spopt/locate/flow.py	Corrects the return type annotation for get_flow_coverage() to reflect its actual dictionary return value.
spopt/tests/test_locate/test_flow.py	Adds a lightweight assertion that the get_flow_coverage() result is a dictionary.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 76.9%. Comparing base (9b36063) to head (7fa0807).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main    #525   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   76.9%   76.9%           
=====================================
  Files         29      29           
  Lines       3700    3700           
=====================================
  Hits        2846    2846           
  Misses       854     854           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
spopt/locate/flow.py	73.2% <100.0%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[jGaboardi]

@samay2504 – You have opened more than 5 Issue+PR pairs in a very short period. Please provide a statement on each associated PR as to the degree of LLM usage that was utilized to both create the issue & PR. This statement should be written by you, not CoPilot or any other LLM.

I can't speak for other maintainers, but I am unwilling to review mass-produced PRs generated by LLMs.

If no explanation is provided in a timely manner, we reserved to right to close them.

cc @knaaptime @martinfleis

[samay2504]

For transparency, I prepared and validated this change myself; I identified the mismatch between the annotation and runtime return type, made the code and test edits locally, ran the checks, and reviewed the diff before opening the PR. I did use tooling assistance in a limited way for wording and minor drafting support, but the technical diagnosis, implementation decisions, testing, and final commit content were done by me. I understand the concern about high-volume submissions, and I will slow down my pace and include explicit disclosure notes on each related PR going forward.