If you can use the **latest versions of Python**, use the examples for the latest version, those will have the **best and simplest syntax**, for example, "**Python 3.10+**".

#### List

For example, let's define a variable to be a `list` of `str`.

//// tab | Python 3.9+

Declare the variable, with the same colon (`:`) syntax.

---

But for this example, we'll use a very simple HTML document with some JavaScript, all inside a long string.

This, of course, is not optimal and you wouldn't use it for production.

In production you would have one of the options above.

But it's the simplest way to focus on the server-side of WebSockets and have a working example:

```Python hl_lines="2  6-38  41-43"

 * @author George van den Driessche
 */
@GwtCompatible
@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault
public interface TestContainerGenerator<T, E extends @Nullable Object> {
  /** Returns the sample elements that this generate populates its container with. */
  SampleElements<E> samples();

  /**
   * Creates a new container containing the given elements. TODO: would be nice to figure out how to

/**
 * Creates collections containing unhashable sample elements, to be tested.
 *
 * @author Regina O'Dell
 */
@GwtCompatible
@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault
public abstract class TestUnhashableCollectionGenerator<T extends Collection<UnhashableObject>>
    implements TestCollectionGenerator<UnhashableObject> {
  @Override
  public SampleElements<UnhashableObject> samples() {
    return new Unhashables();
  }

  @Override

Additionally, it has a fake client variant, that does the same thing but with fake clients for use in unit tests.

Aside from this, there are a few conveniences and workarounds built-in to the client to make things simpler.

*All Istio Kubernetes usage should use this library and not operate on Kubernetes clients directly.*

But I'll show you how to improve that next. 🤓

## Custom Operation IDs and Better Method Names

You can **modify** the way these operation IDs are **generated** to make them simpler and have **simpler method names** in the clients.

In this case you will have to ensure that each operation ID is **unique** in some other way.

When you check the benchmarks, it is common to see several tools of different types compared as equivalent.

Specifically, to see Uvicorn, Starlette and FastAPI compared together (among many other tools).

The simpler the problem solved by the tool, the better performance it will get. And most of the benchmarks don't test the additional features provided by the tool.

The hierarchy is like:

* **Uvicorn**: an ASGI server

     */
    Set<Throwable> seenExceptionsLocal = seenExceptions;
    if (seenExceptionsLocal == null) {
      // TODO(cpovirk): Should we use a simpler (presumably cheaper) data structure?
      /*
       * Using weak references here could let us release exceptions earlier, but:
       *

		parities []int
		parity   int
	}{
		// More than simple majority consensus
		mkTest(15, 3, 11),
		// No simple majority consensus
		mkTest(15, 3, 7),
		// Exact simple majority consensus
		mkTest(15, 3, 8),
		// More than simple majority consensus
		mkTest(16, 4, 11),
		// No simple majority consensus
		mkTest(16, 4, 8),
		// Exact simple majority consensus
		mkTest(16, 4, 9),

/// tip

Having the return model ensure that a value is always available and always `int` (not `None`) is very useful for the API clients, they can write much simpler code having this certainty.

Also, **automatically generated clients** will have simpler interfaces, so that the developers communicating with your API can have a much better time working with your API. 😎

///