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

gh-102433: Add tests for how classes with properties interact with isinstance() checks on typing.runtime_checkable protocols #102449

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Mar 11, 2023

Conversation

AlexWaygood
Copy link
Member

@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood commented Mar 5, 2023

It appears we currently have no tests for how classes with properties interact with isinstance checks 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 in python/typing#1363 is implemented.

@AlexWaygood
Copy link
Member Author

Marking as "DO-NOT-MERGE" for now, as this appears more controversial than I realised.

@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood marked this pull request as draft March 6, 2023 11:29
@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood marked this pull request as ready for review March 10, 2023 17:06
@AlexWaygood
Copy link
Member Author

I've removed the tests that assert undesirable behaviour, as per the consensus in python/typing#1363.

@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood requested a review from carljm March 10, 2023 17:07
Lib/test/test_typing.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Lib/test/test_typing.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
class C:
@property
def attr(self):
return 42
Copy link
Member

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 like raise ValueError? Should we test this case?

Copy link
Member Author

@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood Mar 10, 2023

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 in python/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.

Lib/test/test_typing.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@carljm carljm left a 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!

class BadPG1(Protocol[T]):
attr: T

for obj in PG[T], PG[C], PG1[T], PG1[C], BadP, BadP1, BadPG, BadPG1:
Copy link
Member

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 name obj

Copy link
Member Author

@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood Mar 11, 2023

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't strictly speaking classes anymore — they're generic aliases to protocol classes.

Lib/test/test_typing.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood merged commit 5ffdaf7 into python:main Mar 11, 2023
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @AlexWaygood for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10, 3.11.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood deleted the runtime-checkable-tests branch March 11, 2023 01:20
miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2023
…ith `isinstance()` checks on `typing.runtime_checkable` protocols (pythonGH-102449)

(cherry picked from commit 5ffdaf7)

Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
@bedevere-bot
Copy link

GH-102592 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch.

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the needs backport to 3.11 only security fixes label Mar 11, 2023
miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2023
…ith `isinstance()` checks on `typing.runtime_checkable` protocols (pythonGH-102449)

(cherry picked from commit 5ffdaf7)

Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
@bedevere-bot
Copy link

GH-102593 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch.

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the needs backport to 3.10 only security fixes label Mar 11, 2023
@AlexWaygood
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks, all!

miss-islington added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2023
…sinstance()` checks on `typing.runtime_checkable` protocols (GH-102449)

(cherry picked from commit 5ffdaf7)

Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
miss-islington added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2023
…sinstance()` checks on `typing.runtime_checkable` protocols (GH-102449)

(cherry picked from commit 5ffdaf7)

Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
iritkatriel pushed a commit to iritkatriel/cpython that referenced this pull request Mar 12, 2023
…ith `isinstance()` checks on `typing.runtime_checkable` protocols (python#102449)

Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
skip news tests Tests in the Lib/test dir
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants