refactor: Remove tuple option for Type[AcquisitionFunction], as this …

[mseeger]

…can be done by partial

Follow-up on recent PR by Jacek: Use of partial is more elegant.

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 83.33% and project coverage change: -0.04 ⚠️

Comparison is base (8e369d0) 65.15% compared to head (0bf973b) 65.11%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #715      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   65.15%   65.11%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         427      427              
  Lines       28690    28692       +2     
==========================================
- Hits        18692    18683       -9     
- Misses       9998    10009      +11     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...mizer/schedulers/searchers/dyhpo/dyhpo_searcher.py	88.65% <ø> (ø)
tst/schedulers/test_schedulers_api.py	94.80% <ø> (ø)
...imizer/schedulers/searchers/gp_searcher_factory.py	83.06% <50.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
...ective/multi_surrogate_multi_objective_searcher.py	71.79% <100.00%> (ø)
...archers/bayesopt/tuning_algorithms/base_classes.py	85.00% <100.00%> (+0.47%)	⬆️
...esopt/tuning_algorithms/bo_algorithm_components.py	90.50% <100.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
...mizer/schedulers/searchers/model_based_searcher.py	81.16% <100.00%> (-0.07%)	⬇️
...rs/searchers/sklearn/sklearn_surrogate_searcher.py	75.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[jgolebiowski]

Very nice change, thanks for doing it. One comment I have is that I beliebve the right typing is actually: Callable[[Any], ScoringFunction] since we pass a constructor which will generate an instance of the ScoringFunction

[jgolebiowski]

I think the right typing is actually: Callable[[Any], ScoringFunction] since we are passing a constructor to the scoring function not an instance of the scoring function

[mseeger]

I see, good point

[jgolebiowski]

NIT: ScoringFunctionConstructor

[jgolebiowski]

Could we change ScoringFunctionCreator to ScoringFunctionConstructor. In most cases what is passed is actually the vanilla constructor and it will make it clearer.

[jgolebiowski]

LGTM