Dict: fix the __eq__ implementation to call super

[sphuber]

Fixes the mistake merged in #5142 and this supersedes #5150

The __eq__ method was recently implemented for the Dict data type
but it erroneously did not call through to the super implementation in
case the dictionary content does not match that of other. This caused
the fallback equality implemented on the Node base class, which
ensures that two nodes with the same UUID compare equal, to be missed.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5159 (b4d5f23) into develop (83155d2) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #5159      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    80.92%   80.93%   +0.01%     
===========================================
  Files          536      536              
  Lines        37054    37054              
===========================================
+ Hits         29984    29985       +1     
+ Misses        7070     7069       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
django	75.78% <100.00%> (ø)
sqlalchemy	74.93% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
aiida/orm/nodes/data/dict.py	87.24% <100.00%> (ø)
aiida/transports/plugins/local.py	81.66% <0.00%> (+0.26%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 83155d2...b4d5f23. Read the comment docs.

[ramirezfranciscof]

This is a weird "Fix" because it doesn't really matter what you fall back to as long as it is guaranteed to be False (you could even do return False directly), right? This is just a logical impossibility because if the other node is not a Dict then it will not be equal to this Dict.

So, yeah, I mean, we can go ahead and merge I just found it a bit quirky 😅

[sphuber]

This is a weird "Fix" because it doesn't really matter what you fall back to as long as it is guaranteed to be False (you could even do return False directly), right? This is just a logical impossibility because if the other node is not a Dict then it will not be equal to this Dict.

So, yeah, I mean, we can go ahead and merge I just found it a bit quirky sweat_smile

I think you may have misread. The first conditional checks that other is a dict (normal Python built-in), not Dict the node type. So if that fails, for the fallthrough, we can still be comparing two Dict nodes. The fix here is that this should compare their UUIDs, which is implemented by the Node sub class and is not present in object what we were calling before this fix.

[ramirezfranciscof]

I think you may have misread.

Indeed, haha. Sorry, I was trying to get quick review before something else I had to do I should have read more carefully!