This addresses the same issue as #412 that, for some reason, was reverted with #413 . 412 also introduced new tests that addressed the issue covered by the bugfix. When the 413 reverted the bugfix, those new tests started failing.

@RojerGS I already fixed flake8 error in #418

@articuno12 I have seen it. I only addressed this one because I hadn't noticed before.

@RojerGS A small advice, in open source, you should read what changes others have done before committing yours !

@articuno12 you are most right, my apologies.

@Chipe1 after your #430 I no longer know if I should fix the flake8 warnings like you asked in #416
Also, as @articuno12 notes, the work was already started by him/her. Should I do it nonetheless?

@RojerGS #430 only removes a redundant recheck. Flake8 is still necessary for the build to pass. I think it would be better if there was a single PR that fixes all flake8 errors. Different PRs fixing the problem partially would be hard to track. The errors are very easy to fix and there is no point in breaking them into smaller components. I suggest you copy the changes which @articuno12 made and fix the other errors so that there would not be any merge conflicts. Or we can wait till @articuno12 fixes all the flake8 related problems in his PR

@Chipe1 I will fix them all in my PR.

This is not the currect thread to discuss this but #415 adds fol_fc_ask which seems to be incomplete and causes flake8 errors. @articuno12 would either have to remove it, or @sofmonk needs to update the implementation.

@Chipe1 For now I have changed the lines causing flake8 errors in fol_fc_ask, this removes flake8 errors but doesn't guarantee fol_fc_ask to work.