Skip to content

Conformance tests and spec change for generic type erasure #1589

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 19, 2024
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Next Next commit
Conformance tests and spec change for generic type erasure
  • Loading branch information
hauntsaninja committed Jan 16, 2024
commit cd81f97c1ed5702f18c826e5b22ee716f41c580d
54 changes: 54 additions & 0 deletions conformance/tests/generics_type_erasure.py
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
# Specification: https://typing.readthedocs.io/en/latest/spec/generics.html#instantiating-generic-classes-and-type-erasure

from typing import Any, TypeVar, Generic, assert_type

T = TypeVar("T")

# > If the constructor (__init__ or __new__) uses T in its signature, and a
# > corresponding argument value is passed, the type of the corresponding
# > argument(s) is substituted. Otherwise, Any is assumed.

class Node(Generic[T]):
label: T
def __init__(self, label: T | None = None) -> None: ...

assert_type(Node(''), Node[str])
assert_type(Node(0), Node[int])
assert_type(Node(), Node[Any])

assert_type(Node(0).label, int)
assert_type(Node().label, Any)

# > In case the inferred type uses [Any] but the intended type is more specific,
# > you can use an annotation to force the type of the variable, e.g.:

n1: Node[int] = Node()
assert_type(n1, Node[int])
n2: Node[str] = Node()
assert_type(n2, Node[str])

n3 = Node[int]()
assert_type(n3, Node[int])
n4 = Node[str]()
assert_type(n4, Node[str])

n5 = Node[int](0) # OK
n6 = Node[int]("") # Type error
n7 = Node[str]("") # OK
n8 = Node[str](0) # Type error

Node[int].label = 1 # Type error
Node[int].label # Type error
Node.label = 1 # Type error
Node.label # Type error
type(n1).label # Type error
assert_type(n1.label, int)
assert_type(Node[int]().label, int)
n1.label = 1 # OK

# > [...] generic versions of concrete collections can be instantiated:

from typing import DefaultDict

data = DefaultDict[int, bytes]()
assert_type(data[0], bytes)
8 changes: 4 additions & 4 deletions docs/spec/generics.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -333,15 +333,15 @@ argument(s) is substituted. Otherwise, ``Any`` is assumed. Example::

class Node(Generic[T]):
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@hauntsaninja hauntsaninja Jan 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The paragraph above could probably be improved. For instance, without the change I make here, pyright would infer Node() to be Node[None], and I think that should be legal.

That said, handling of default values for generics in general is underspecified (mypy handles them poorly, but in part because it wasn't clear what the behaviour should be python/mypy#3737)

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When this part of the spec was written, mypy defaulted to "implicit-optional", which would give you the same effect as adding | None. Since then, the spec was updated to recommend against "implicit-optional", but this code sample wasn't updated. I'd be in favor of just updating the spec to fix the sample.

x: T # Instance attribute (see below)
def __init__(self, label: T = None) -> None:
def __init__(self, label: T | None = None) -> None:
...

x = Node('') # Inferred type is Node[str]
y = Node(0) # Inferred type is Node[int]
z = Node() # Inferred type is Node[Any]

In case the inferred type uses ``[Any]`` but the intended type is more
specific, you can use a type comment (see below) to force the type of
specific, you can use an annotation (see below) to force the type of
the variable, e.g.::

# (continued from previous example)
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -373,8 +373,8 @@ class instance that does not have an instance attribute with the same name::
Node.x = 1 # Error
Node.x # Error
type(p).x # Error
p.x # Ok (evaluates to None)
Node[int]().x # Ok (evaluates to None)
p.x # Ok (evaluates to int)
Node[int]().x # Ok (evaluates to int)
p.x = 1 # Ok, but assigning to instance attribute
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These just seem straight up incorrect to me

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I agree. Looks like a spec bug.


Generic versions of abstract collections like ``Mapping`` or ``Sequence``
Expand Down
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy