-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.4k
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
Conversation
…untime_checkable` protocols
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 in python/typing#1363. |
class C: | ||
@property | ||
def attr(self): | ||
return 42 |
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
like raise ValueError
? Should we test this case?
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 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.
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!
class BadPG1(Protocol[T]): | ||
attr: T | ||
|
||
for obj in PG[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 name obj
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't strictly speaking classes anymore — they're generic aliases to protocol classes.
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 commit 5ffdaf7) Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
GH-102592 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch. |
…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>
GH-102593 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch. |
Thanks, all! |
…ith `isinstance()` checks on `typing.runtime_checkable` protocols (python#102449) Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
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.
isinstance
onruntime_checkable
Protocol
has side-effects for@property
methods #102433