[Core] Add options(...) function to @ray.remote stubs

[milesvant]

Why are these changes needed?

Removes incorrect mypy failures resulting from using @ray.remote.

On my reproduction script:

import ray


@ray.remote
def fn(x: int) -> int:
    return 2 * x

def main() -> None:
    fn_with_cpus = fn.options(num_cpus=1)
    print(ray.get(fn_with_cpus.remote(4)))

if __name__ == "__main__":
    ray.init()
    main()
    ray.shutdown()

with nightly Ray, mypy script.py produces error: "RemoteFunction0[int, int]" has no attribute "options" [attr-defined] whereas my branch produces no error.

Related issue number

Closes #47329.

Checks

• I've signed off every commit(by using the -s flag, i.e., git commit -s) in this PR.
• I've run scripts/format.sh to lint the changes in this PR.
• I've included any doc changes needed for https://docs.ray.io/en/master/.
  • I've added any new APIs to the API Reference. For example, if I added a
    method in Tune, I've added it in doc/source/tune/api/ under the
    corresponding .rst file.
• I've made sure the tests are passing. Note that there might be a few flaky tests, see the recent failures at https://flakey-tests.ray.io/
• Testing Strategy
  • Unit tests
  • Release tests
  • This PR is not tested :(

[milesvant]

Seems like the failing rllib tests are unrelated to me

[anyscalesam]

@ruisearch42 since this is on the worker side of the house can you PTAL? @can-anyscale any recommendation on how we can skip/pass the seemingly unrelated RLLib failing tests?

TY for the contribution @milesvant

[ruisearch42]

Thanks for the contribution.

Left a couple questions, but otherwise LGTM.

[ruisearch42]

I understand that generally it is better to have proper type annotations. Just wondering in this particular case, are you trying to achieve something specific? What is the use case that you were trying to enable? IIUC currently Ray runs mypy on a limited number of files.

[milesvant]

I work in a codebase that uses the pattern in the description/issue frequently, and has strict type checking. Without this sort of annotation I have to ignore typechecking on most usages of Ray

[milesvant]

@ruisearch42 What can I do to get this merged? I think the failing tests are flaky

[ruisearch42]

@rkooo567 Does this look good to you? If so, we can ask CI team to force merge.

[milesvant]

@ruisearch42 @rkooo567 bump

[ruisearch42]

@milesvant can you merge master and retry?

[milesvant]

@ruisearch42 microcheck now green

[ruisearch42]

@jjyao @rynewang (committers) Can you help merge this unless you have more comments?

[milesvant]

@ruisearch42 @jjyao @rynewang bump