I've tried repeatedly to do that and it's turning out to be very hard. I'll keep poking at it (for a separate change) but I'm not sure I'll get there.

Not all hosting services have a path field (for example, gerrit operates on only gerrit_url and gerrit_project_name)

Never is used for handling theoretically unreachable situations based on types.
For example:

def fn(a: str | int | None):
    if isinstance(a, str):
        ...
    elif isinstance(a, int):
        ...
    elif a is None:
        ...
    else:
        ... # this code gets flagged by type checkers as unreachable because it's theoretically impossible from the types.


In this case, to avoid the type checker issuing a warning, we can do:

def fn(a: str | int | None):
    if isinstance(a, str):
        ...
    elif isinstance(a, int):
        ...
    elif a is None:
        ...
    else:
        _log_and_raise(a, ...)


https://typing.python.org/en/latest/guides/unreachable.html has more detail.

I went down the rabbit hole on this. Meanings changed a bit over time (NoReturn involved exceptions, Never meant "can never return"), but it seems this has changed.
The latest spec says this:



Since Python 3.11, the typing module contains a special form Never. It represents the bottom type, a type that represents the empty set of Python objects.
The Never type is equivalent to NoReturn, which is discussed above. The NoReturn type is conventionally used in return annotations of functions, and Never is typically used in other locations, but the two types are completely interchangeable.

The "Unreachable Code and Exhaustiveness Checking" guide is showing Never to be used for code that can never be reached, wiring off that code path from type checkers. But that's not what this function is doing. 
Given that, it sounds like NoReturn is in fact the more correct option, even though technically they're equivalent. This function is logging something and raising, but is a valid code path that can be called in valid circumstances and would remain checked. It's not a code path that can't be hit, but rather a validation check for implementations that might be incorrect.

I don't think so? It was never correct that plan could have been None.

Yes, we probably should.