Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork33.3k
gh-102433: Add tests for how classes with properties interact withisinstance() checks ontyping.runtime_checkable protocols#102449
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
…untime_checkable` protocols
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Marking as "DO-NOT-MERGE" for now, as this appears more controversial than I realised. |
I've removed the tests that assert undesirable behaviour, as per the consensus inpython/typing#1363. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
| classC: | ||
| @property | ||
| defattr(self): | ||
| return42 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
What about side-effects in@property likeraise ValueError? Should we test this case?
AlexWaygoodMar 10, 2023 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
We should test this case, definitely! But the behaviour for this case may be about to change if any of the patches discussed inpython/typing#1363 is implemented (and the consensus seems to be that we should implement one of those patches). If so, we should add the tests in the same PR as we change the behaviour.
Whether or not we decide to change the behaviour around properties that have side effects, I'd prefer to add those tests in a separate PR, so that this PR is solely focussed on adding tests for uncontroversial behaviour.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
A couple nits, but these tests look good to me! Thank you!
| classBadPG1(Protocol[T]): | ||
| attr:T | ||
| forobjinPG[T],PG[C],PG1[T],PG1[C],BadP,BadP1,BadPG,BadPG1: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
nit: these are all protocol classes still; the name'protocol_class used in the above "good" loop seems much clearer than the nameobj
AlexWaygoodMar 11, 2023 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
No strong opinion here, but the reason I avoided "protocol_class" for these ones is that the parameterised ones (PG[T], etc) aren'tstrictly speaking classes anymore — they're generic aliases to protocol classes.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
Thanks@AlexWaygood for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10, 3.11. |
…ith `isinstance()` checks on `typing.runtime_checkable` protocols (pythonGH-102449)(cherry picked from commit5ffdaf7)Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
bedevere-bot commentedMar 11, 2023
GH-102592 is a backport of this pull request to the3.11 branch. |
…ith `isinstance()` checks on `typing.runtime_checkable` protocols (pythonGH-102449)(cherry picked from commit5ffdaf7)Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
bedevere-bot commentedMar 11, 2023
GH-102593 is a backport of this pull request to the3.10 branch. |
Thanks, all! |
…ith `isinstance()` checks on `typing.runtime_checkable` protocols (python#102449)Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
It appears we currently have no tests for how classes with properties interact with
isinstancechecks for protocols decorated with@runtime_checkable.I'm trying to only add tests here for uncontroversial behaviour that we won't want changed, whether or not any of the patches discussed inpython/typing#1363 is implemented.
isinstanceonruntime_checkableProtocolhas side-effects for@propertymethods #102433