Skip to content
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

fix(types): provide better type hints for a variety of generic types #4259

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Aug 4, 2023

Conversation

virtuald
Copy link
Contributor

@virtuald virtuald commented Oct 19, 2022

Description

  • Makes for better documentation
  • Added support for annotating tuple, dict, list, set, function

@sizmailov I'm pretty sure this will allow users to make better .pyi files too. :)

Note: I'm open to bikeshedding on the names, but adding an underscore seemed like a reasonable approach.

Suggested changelog entry:

Special 'typed' wrappers now available in typing.h to annotate tuple, dict, list, set, and function

Copy link
Collaborator

@Skylion007 Skylion007 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Instead of wrappers, is there anyway we can abuse the existing C++ classes? Like having an optional template arg that has a default value of "Any" or "object". Then if that special template arg is specified we revert to the old caster?

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think that would work.... though, would it break users that are using multiple modules with different versions of pybind11?

@Skylion007
Copy link
Collaborator

Or if we want to go with legacy Python names, just copy the capitalized nature of the collections Tuple, Set...

@virtuald virtuald force-pushed the annotated-types branch 2 times, most recently from a3ed9d2 to 8633a05 Compare October 20, 2022 01:03
@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

I like that better, and it matches the annotation as well. I also changed function_ to Callable for consistency.

@EthanSteinberg
Copy link
Collaborator

EthanSteinberg commented Oct 20, 2022

If you are trying to support stub generation, you should probably add some unit tests for that stub generation (but in a separate PR).

@Skylion007
Copy link
Collaborator

Thinking about this a bit more, certain casters already STRICTLY define and check/these types when relevant and these annotations won't be runtime checks (nor should they for performance reasons), but i worry that this may be confusing to a user who would be surprised when a particular cast breaks. @virtuald Also, some more information could specified with typing.Annotated, do we have know how we would support that in the future? We probably should also move some of our casters like the Array Caster to that see #3916 for example.

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Skylion007

i worry that this may be confusing to a user who would be surprised when a particular cast breaks

Then let's put a note in there that it's just for documentation purposes? It's python, we're never guaranteed that anything gets validated at runtime.

Also, some more information could specified with typing.Annotated, do we have know how we would support that in the future?

I'm less interested in mypy validation and more interested in documentation and better IDE support. Historically IDEs haven't tried to do introspection on compiled packages, so things like autocomplete and documentation wouldn't work. In that spirit, if there are things we can add that make pybind11-stubgen's life easier, then that makes a lot of sense to me... but other things seem less useful. With a .pyi file next to my compiled library, when I click on the function in my code in my properly configured IDE, it brings me right to the pyi documentation, and things like autocomplete and types work as expected. I think mypy will use the pyi file if present as well.

@lalaland I did add tests for stub generation? pybind11-stubgen generates stubs from the docstrings that pybind11 generates, and the test I added ensures they're in the right form. Unless you're going to integrate pybind11-stubgen into pybind11, there's nothing more to do here.

@Skylion007
Copy link
Collaborator

Skylion007 commented Oct 20, 2022

@virtuald What about the edge case where a user wants to specify Tuple for consistency? IE. no template args.

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

Added that.

I note that the capitalized form of the builtin types (eg, Tuple) is deprecated as of python 3.9, so we could conditionally change the caseness based on the python version. Thinking about it, I think maybe since this is just a docstring, that we should leave the desired form up to the stub generator. It'll also be consistent with our other casters that have the uppercase form.

@Skylion007
Copy link
Collaborator

What about untyped List, Set, etc...

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

You have to use the lowercase version for those.

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

I was contemplating a way to add an arbitrary annotation to types (like py::annotate<int, "typing.Annotate[int, (2, 3)]">, but it seems that you can't make a string a template parameter. These changes are probably fine for now though.

@EthanSteinberg
Copy link
Collaborator

@virtuald You can make a string a template parameter in C++ now

https://ctrpeach.io/posts/cpp20-string-literal-template-parameters/

Simply add some #include guards to only enable this for new enough compilers

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ha, neat:

template <typename T, detail::descr Name>
struct Annotate : T {
    using T::T;
};

template <typename T, descr Name>
struct handle_type_name<Annotate<T, Name>> {
    static constexpr auto name = Name;
};

...

m.def("annotate_int", [](const py::Annotate<py::int_, py::detail::const_name("Annotate[int, (1,2)]")> &) {});

That feels like a separate PR though, there's lots of room for bikeshedding and depending on how one feels about const_name could be more invasive.

@Skylion007
Copy link
Collaborator

Skylion007 commented Oct 21, 2022

You have to use the lowercase version for those.

Then we should have a static_assert to enforce that at least one template is specified. Otherwise, people are going to accidentally create List[] and other invalid stubs.

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Skylion007 Only tuple has variable templates, everything else has a required template arg, no need for static assert:

template <typename T>
class List : public list {
    using list::list;
};

I don't think python type hints allow per-element hints for lists, dicts, sets.

@sizmailov
Copy link
Contributor

@virtuald I like this idea.
It feels like all "typed" types could be a third-party library or could be defined in a separate header within pybind (e.g. typing.h).
I don't have a strong preference for one over the other; just sharing a thought.

@Skylion007
Copy link
Collaborator

@Skylion007 Only tuple has variable templates, everything else has a required template arg, no need for static assert:

template <typename T>
class List : public list {
    using list::list;
};

I don't think python type hints allow per-element hints for lists, dicts, sets.

@virtuald , Ah typo, I meant handling the template args for Callable.

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

It feels like all "typed" types could be a third-party library or could be defined in a separate header within pybind (e.g. typing.h).

I think having at least the basic python types in pybind11 makes sense, a third party library would be harder to discover. I'm.. +0.5 on putting all of this in typing.h if there are no objections... though, there are a lot of headers in pybind11 these days.

@EthanSteinberg
Copy link
Collaborator

EthanSteinberg commented Oct 21, 2022

@virtuald Why can't annotations be part of pybind11::arg?

a.def("foo_function", [](py::list name){}, py::arg("name", "List[str]") ;

py::annotate is going to be extremely confusing.

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

virtuald commented Oct 21, 2022

@lalaland that's a neat approach, I like that we could specify arbitrarily complex type hints. It would have to also include a way to change the hint for return values and properties as well. Better than py::annotate.

In theory that approach could replace this current PR. However, I do like having the ability to do using MyCb = py::Callable<void(int)> and reuse it in several places -- so I think they're complementary.

@EthanSteinberg
Copy link
Collaborator

so I think they're complementary

Yep. Totally agree. I think the goal should be that pybind11 should automatically generate the correct types from the C++ argument types, with manual annotations in py::arg only as a fallback solution for when the automatic approach fails.

@Skylion007
Copy link
Collaborator

@virtuald Could this be extended to solve this typing issue too? #3986 (comment)

@Skylion007
Copy link
Collaborator

@virtuald, Actually, this should just be automatic for newer versions of Python for return types, right? Something to consider if we decide to refactor casters.

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

I moved the typing related classes to typing.h.

I've been using this for awhile with no ill effects as far as I can tell. I don't believe there are any further changes to be made to this specific PR -- other suggestions mentioned above are better suited for their own PRs.

@rwgk
Copy link
Collaborator

rwgk commented Jul 19, 2023

I'll run this through global testing, to see if there are any surprises. (That will take 6+ hours.)

@rwgk
Copy link
Collaborator

rwgk commented Jul 20, 2023

Global testing passed (the internal test id is OCL:549398140:BASE:549657321:1689871259083:7fa91c99)

I'll review asap.

There is no additional enforcement of types at runtime.
*/

template <typename... Types>
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this feature will be clearer as such by having the types below in a typing sub-namespace.

I'm not sure about (e.g.) py::typing::Tuple vs py::typing::tuple. Pure Python typing.tuple does not exist (I tried with Python 3.11), therefore I'm guessing py::typing::Tuple might be less surprising.

};

template <typename T>
class List : public list {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could this be template <typename... Types> like or Tuple?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Update: I just ran this by a typing expert on my team, from that I learned:

List[float, str] isn't a valid type annotation, since a list (unlike a tuple) can only have one element type. A list that contains both floats and strs can be typed as list[float | str] (or List[Union[float, str]] for Python 3.9- compatibility).

Is that too tricky to implement for this PR?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IMO, list[float | str] is fine / best, that's valid for older versions of Python as long as you only use it for typing and not at runtime.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also, the equivalent for tuple is tuple[float | str, ...]. tuple[float, str] is a size 2 tuple with a float as the first item, and a str as the second.

template <typename... Types>
struct handle_type_name<Tuple<Types...>> {
static constexpr auto name
= const_name("Tuple[") + concat(make_caster<Types>::name...) + const_name("]");
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Another thing I learned from the typing expert team mate:

Would it be better to have lower-case names (tuple, dict, list, set) in the output?

It depends on what Python versions you need to support. In Python 3.10 and higher, it is indeed preferred to use the lowercase builtin names.

That makes me think #ifdefs of some sort would be best (to produce Tuple for <= 3.9 and tuple otherwise), although that adds a bit of clutter until we can drop 3.9 support.

Tying that back to my other comment, py::typing::tuple vs py::typing::Tuple:

Pure Python typing.Tuple will likely be deleted at some point in the future, although IIUC there is no timeline yet.

We cannot reuse py::tuple like pure Python reuses tuple for typing purposes.

Should we have py::typing::tuple or py::typing::Tuple? I don't know. It's on the awkward side either way.

I think I'd settle for py::typing::tuple (for any Python version), to not look old fashioned in the long run.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For Python 3.7-3.9, you still can use lower case as long as you only use them for typing. In this case, it can only be used for typing, not runtime, so please use the lowercase, un-namespaced names, no ifdefs. I've mostly removed typing.* stuff from libraries that are 3.7+.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1

Note that we have already firmly decided to remove Python 3.6 support asap (as soon as I find a moment).

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(Yes, rather assuming that in this discussion :) - besides, typing in 3.6 is pretty hard since everything has dropped it a while back)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would add a class Union<T...> : object to implement union markers in a more general way.

If there was a py::typing namespace it would make more sense to implement such a thing, since py::Union is a bit weird.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would add a class Union<T...> : object to implement union markers in a more general way.

If there was a py::typing namespace it would make more sense to implement such a thing, since py::Union is a bit weird.

Sounds great to me. I felt strongly already that py::typing is the way to go, now even more.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I gave it a shot, but I think adding would be out of scope for this current PR because of two messy issues that came up.

If you add a Union type then you get compilation errors when loading the argument because one would need to define a PYBIND11_OBJECT_COMMON for it... which, you could add a check function to check if the incoming PyObject is one of the arg types, but the common types also have implicit conversions which wouldn't be caught here.

Additionally this would require defining a concat_pipe version of concat which is mostly copy/paste, but it's another thing to maintain.

Copy link
Collaborator

@rwgk rwgk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks great to me now.

The only small doubt I still have, do we want py::typing::Tuple or py::typing::tuple?

I slightly favor py::typing::Tuple as we have right now in this PR. It might look old fashioned from a pure Python viewpoint, but in the context of C++ it's a nice way to not have surprise name collisions (between py::tuple and py::typing::tuple).

@virtuald
Copy link
Contributor Author

I prefer Tuple over tuple.

@rwgk
Copy link
Collaborator

rwgk commented Jul 23, 2023

I prefer Tuple over tuple.

Cool, thanks.

@EthanSteinberg, @Skylion007, @henryiii, @sizmailov does anyone have a strong reason to prefer py::typing::tuple?

I'll wait a couple days for responses. If there are no objections, I'll merge this PR.

@rwgk
Copy link
Collaborator

rwgk commented Jul 23, 2023

(I just fixed my previous comment: should have been py::typing::tuple).

@EthanSteinberg
Copy link
Collaborator

@rwgk

does anyone have a strong reason to prefer py::typing::tuple?

I would support upper case Tuple to avoid name collisions.

@rwgk
Copy link
Collaborator

rwgk commented Jul 23, 2023

@rwgk

does anyone have a strong reason to prefer py::typing::tuple?

I would support upper case Tuple to avoid name collisions.

Perfect, thanks, that makes 3 votes for upper case Tuple (counting Dustin's), I'll go ahead merge this PR now.

@rwgk
Copy link
Collaborator

rwgk commented Jul 23, 2023

Oh, wait, @Skylion007, merging is blocked because you requested changes. Could you please look again?

Copy link
Collaborator

@Skylion007 Skylion007 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I also prefer Tuple

pybind11/typing.h: Convenience wrapper classes for basic Python types
with more explicit annotations.

Copyright (c) 2016 Wenzel Jakob <wenzel.jakob@epfl.ch>
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry I forgot to comment on this before, could you please either put your name & current year, or maybe:

// Copyright (c) 2023 The pybind Community.

(That's what I usually use.)

@rwgk
Copy link
Collaborator

rwgk commented Aug 4, 2023

@virtuald I took the liberty to update the copyright line: 072049a

I'll merge this as soon as I see that the CI is done, then I'll update the smart_holder branch.

@rwgk rwgk merged commit f870315 into pybind:master Aug 4, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added the needs changelog Possibly needs a changelog entry label Aug 4, 2023
rwgk pushed a commit to rwgk/pybind11 that referenced this pull request Aug 4, 2023
* Provide better type hints for a variety of generic types

* Makes better documentation
* tuple, dict, list, set, function

* Move to py::typing

* style: pre-commit fixes

* Update copyright line with correct year and actual author. The author information was copy-pasted from the git log output.

---------

Co-authored-by: Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve <rwgk@google.com>
Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
rwgk pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2023
…#4772)

* Copy clang 17 compatibility fixes from PR #4762 to a separate PR.

* static py::exception<> -> static py::handle

* Add `py::set_error()` but also try the suggestion of @malfet (pytorch/pytorch#106401 (review)).

* clang 17 compatibility fixes (#4767)

* Copy clang 17 compatibility fixes from PR #4762 to a separate PR.

* Add gcc:13 C++20

* Add silkeh/clang:16-bullseye C++20

* chore(deps): update pre-commit hooks (#4770)

updates:
- [github.com/psf/black: 23.3.0 → 23.7.0](psf/black@23.3.0...23.7.0)
- [github.com/astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit: v0.0.276 → v0.0.281](astral-sh/ruff-pre-commit@v0.0.276...v0.0.281)
- [github.com/asottile/blacken-docs: 1.14.0 → 1.15.0](adamchainz/blacken-docs@1.14.0...1.15.0)

Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

* docs: Remove upper bound on pybind11 in example pyproject.toml for setuptools (#4774)

* docs: Remove upper bound on pybind11 in example pyproject.toml for setuptools

* Update docs/compiling.rst

---------

Co-authored-by: Henry Schreiner <HenrySchreinerIII@gmail.com>

* Provide better type hints for a variety of generic types (#4259)

* Provide better type hints for a variety of generic types

* Makes better documentation
* tuple, dict, list, set, function

* Move to py::typing

* style: pre-commit fixes

* Update copyright line with correct year and actual author. The author information was copy-pasted from the git log output.

---------

Co-authored-by: Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve <rwgk@google.com>
Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

* Use `py::set_error()` everywhere possible (only one special case, in common.h).
Overload `py::set_error(py::handle, py::handle)`.
Change back to `static py::handle exc = ... .release();`
Deprecate `py::exception<>::operator()`

* Add `PYBIND11_WARNING_DISABLE` for INTEL and MSVC (and sort alphabetically).

* `PYBIND11_WARNING_DISABLE_INTEL(10441)` does not work.

For ICC only, falling back to the recommended `py::set_error()` to keep the testing simple.

It is troublesome to add `--diag-disable=10441` specifically for test_exceptions.cpp, even that is non-ideal because it covers the entire file, not just the one line we need it for, and the value of exercising the trivial deprecated `operator()` on this one extra platform is practically zero.

* Fix silly oversight.

* NVHPC 23.5.0 generates deprecation warnings. They are currently not treated as errors, but falling back to using `py::set_error()` to not have to deal with that distraction.

---------

Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Keto D. Zhang <keto.zhang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Henry Schreiner <HenrySchreinerIII@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Dustin Spicuzza <dustin@virtualroadside.com>
@henryiii henryiii changed the title Provide better type hints for a variety of generic types fix(types) provide better type hints for a variety of generic types Nov 15, 2023
@henryiii henryiii changed the title fix(types) provide better type hints for a variety of generic types fix(types): provide better type hints for a variety of generic types Nov 15, 2023
@henryiii henryiii removed the needs changelog Possibly needs a changelog entry label Mar 27, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants