handle type annotations in nested functions correctly by elmjag · Pull Request #7072 · RustPython/RustPython · GitHub

For example in the following code:

def foo(x: int, y: float):
    def bar(q: int):
        return q
    pass

Make sure that foo type annotations are correctly propogated to it's __annotate__ and __annotations__ attributes.

With this chage, we'll get:

>>>>> foo.__annotations__
{'x': <class 'int'>, 'y': <class 'float'>}

Previously annotations where 'lost', and we would get:

>>>>> foo.__annotations__
{}

Summary by CodeRabbit

Refactor
- Improved internal handling of annotation scopes so annotations are preserved and restored more consistently around definition boundaries, reducing rare inconsistencies and improving overall stability and predictability.

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The SymbolTableBuilder::scan_statement handling for FunctionDef now saves/restores the current scope's annotation_block for Function and AsyncFunction in addition to Class and Module, extending annotation scope preservation to function definitions.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Annotation Block Handling crates/codegen/src/symboltable.rs	Adjusted the condition in the FunctionDef branch to include Function and AsyncFunction alongside Class and Module when deciding to save the current scope's annotation_block, ensuring annotation scopes are captured/restored around function definitions.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

🐰✍️ I hopped through scopes both near and far,
Saved annotations like a tiny star.
Functions now hold what they once forgot,
Restored with care — a neat little plot. 🥕

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1 ❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title directly relates to the main change: expanding annotation_block preservation to nested functions (Function/AsyncFunction) to correctly handle type annotations in nested functions.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing touches

📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In `@crates/codegen/src/symboltable.rs`:
- Around line 1137-1142: The matches expression that sets
should_save_annotation_block currently checks parent_scope_typ for
CompilerScope::Class, ::Module, and ::Function but omits
CompilerScope::AsyncFunction; update the matches to include
Some(CompilerScope::AsyncFunction) so async functions are treated the same as
normal functions when deciding to save/restore annotation blocks (referencing
the local variables should_save_annotation_block and parent_scope_typ in
symboltable.rs).

For example in the following code: def foo(x: int, y: float): def bar(q: int): return q pass Make sure that `foo` type annotations are correctly propogated to it's `__annotate__` and `__annotations__` attributes. With this chage, we'll get: >>>>> foo.__annotations__ {'x': <class 'int'>, 'y': <class 'float'>} Previously annotations where 'lost', and we would get: >>>>> foo.__annotations__ {}

📦 Library Dependencies

The following Lib/ modules were modified. Here are their dependencies:

[ ] lib: cpython/Lib/typing.py
[ ] test: cpython/Lib/test/test_typing.py (TODO: 19)
[ ] test: cpython/Lib/test/test_type_aliases.py
[ ] test: cpython/Lib/test/test_type_annotations.py
[ ] test: cpython/Lib/test/test_type_params.py
[ ] test: cpython/Lib/test/test_genericalias.py (TODO: 3)

dependencies:

typing (native: _typing, collections.abc, sys)
- collections (native: _weakref, itertools, sys)
- types
- abc, copyreg, functools, operator

dependent tests: (10 tests)

typing: test_annotationlib test_builtin test_enum test_fractions test_functools test_genericalias test_grammar test_isinstance test_types test_typing

Legend:

[+] path exists in CPython
[x] up-to-date, [ ] outdated

👍 Thank you!

For example in the following code: def foo(x: int, y: float): def bar(q: int): return q pass Make sure that `foo` type annotations are correctly propogated to it's `__annotate__` and `__annotations__` attributes. With this chage, we'll get: >>>>> foo.__annotations__ {'x': <class 'int'>, 'y': <class 'float'>} Previously annotations where 'lost', and we would get: >>>>> foo.__annotations__ {}

coderabbitai Bot reviewed Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread crates/codegen/src/symboltable.rs

elmjag force-pushed the nested-funcs-annotations branch from 890e8ed to 2c83511 Compare February 10, 2026 14:07

youknowone approved these changes Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

youknowone merged commit fde808e into RustPython:main Feb 10, 2026
13 of 14 checks passed

elmjag deleted the nested-funcs-annotations branch February 12, 2026 13:46

coderabbitai Bot mentioned this pull request Mar 2, 2026

Fix symbol table sub_table desync for non-simple annotation targets #7300

Merged

handle type annotations in nested functions correctly by elmjag · Pull Request #7072 · RustPython/RustPython · GitHub

Uh oh!

handle type annotations in nested functions correctly - #7072

handle type annotations in nested functions correctly#7072
youknowone merged 1 commit into
RustPython:mainfrom
elmjag:nested-funcs-annotations

elmjag commented Feb 10, 2026 •
edited by coderabbitai Bot
Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 10, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

youknowone left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

handle type annotations in nested functions correctly by elmjag · Pull Request #7072 · RustPython/RustPython · GitHub

Uh oh!

handle type annotations in nested functions correctly - #7072

handle type annotations in nested functions correctly#7072youknowone merged 1 commit intoRustPython:mainRustPython/RustPython:mainfrom elmjag:nested-funcs-annotationselmjag/RustPython:nested-funcs-annotationsCopy head branch name to clipboard

Conversation

elmjag commented Feb 10, 2026 • edited by coderabbitai Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Poem

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 10, 2026

📦 Library Dependencies

Uh oh!

youknowone left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

handle type annotations in nested functions correctly#7072
youknowone merged 1 commit into
RustPython:mainfrom
elmjag:nested-funcs-annotations

elmjag commented Feb 10, 2026 •
edited by coderabbitai Bot
Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 10, 2026 •
edited
Loading