fix(python 106): various fixes

[TheLeoP]

Should address python problems from #452

[ColinKennedy]

I'm using the latest commit

I'm not sure which of the listed issues that this PR addresses so I'll restate each + say which of these are addressed.

In all cases I called require("refactoring").refactor("Extract Function")

Before

class Foo(_Base):
    """Some stuff here."""

    def __init__(self, blah: str) -> None:
        """More things."""
        blah: str = "something"
        do_thing(blah)

        super().__init__(another=10, stuff=8, blah=blah)

After

class Foo(_Base):
    """Some stuff here."""

    def foo(self, blah: str) -> None:
        blah: str = "something"
        do_thing(blah)
        return blah



    def __init__(self, blah: str) -> None:
        """More things."""
        blah = self.foo(blah)


        super().__init__(another=10, stuff=8, blah=blah)

• The space between the functions is very wide for some reason
  • This works for 2 free functions (functions not in classes)
  • but does not work for class functions still (see the example above)
• new_function is placed above __init__
  • FWIW I don't think this PR is trying to fix this one
• def new_function(self, ) gets a trailing , ) when def new_function(self) was expected
• lots of newlines were left over where blah = self.new_function() was placed
  • Sounds like this would need to be a separate configuration + change and isn't in this PR
• The refactor saw blah but didn't take into account its typehint and wrote def new_function(self, ) -> None: rather than def new_function(self, ) -> str:

[TheLeoP]

It looks like neovim/neovim#29212 breaks some previous asssumtion about the order of the text eddits. I'm gonna open a differnt issue for that problem

[kuator]

ong?