FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending |
URL:
| Home
Tools: [Download Repo ZIP]   [Original HTTPS Page]

gh-102433: Add tests for how classes with properties interact with `isinstance()` checks on `typing.runtime_checkable` protocols by AlexWaygood · Pull Request #102449 · python/cpython · GitHub

/ cpython Public
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension .py  (1) All 1 file type selected
Viewed files
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Unified
Split
Hide whitespace
Diff view
Unified
Split
Hide whitespace
88 changes: 88 additions & 0 deletions Lib/test/test_typing.py
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2535,6 +2535,94 @@ def meth(x): ...
with self.assertRaises(TypeError):
isinstance(C(), BadPG)

def test_protocols_isinstance_properties_and_descriptors(self):
class C:
@property
def attr(self):
return 42

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

What about side-effects in @property like raise ValueError? Should we test this case?

AlexWaygood Mar 10, 2023
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

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.


class CustomDescriptor:
def __get__(self, obj, objtype=None):
return 42

class D:
attr = CustomDescriptor()

# Check that properties set on superclasses
# are still found by the isinstance() logic
class E(C): ...
class F(D): ...

class Empty: ...

T = TypeVar('T')

@runtime_checkable
class P(Protocol):
@property
def attr(self): ...

@runtime_checkable
class P1(Protocol):
attr: int

@runtime_checkable
class PG(Protocol[T]):
@property
def attr(self): ...

@runtime_checkable
class PG1(Protocol[T]):
attr: T

for protocol_class in P, P1, PG, PG1:
for klass in C, D, E, F:
with self.subTest(
klass=klass.__name__,
protocol_class=protocol_class.__name__
):
self.assertIsInstance(klass(), protocol_class)

with self.subTest(klass="Empty", protocol_class=protocol_class.__name__):
self.assertNotIsInstance(Empty(), protocol_class)

class BadP(Protocol):
@property
def attr(self): ...

class BadP1(Protocol):
attr: int

class BadPG(Protocol[T]):
@property
def attr(self): ...

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

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

nit: these are all protocol classes still; the name 'protocol_class used in the above "good" loop seems much clearer than the name obj

AlexWaygood Mar 11, 2023
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

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.

for klass in C, D, E, F, Empty:
with self.subTest(klass=klass.__name__, obj=obj):
with self.assertRaises(TypeError):
isinstance(klass(), obj)

def test_protocols_isinstance_not_fooled_by_custom_dir(self):
@runtime_checkable
class HasX(Protocol):
x: int

class CustomDirWithX:
x = 10
def __dir__(self):
return []

class CustomDirWithoutX:
def __dir__(self):
return ["x"]

self.assertIsInstance(CustomDirWithX(), HasX)
self.assertNotIsInstance(CustomDirWithoutX(), HasX)

def test_protocols_isinstance_py36(self):
class APoint:
def __init__(self, x, y, label):
Expand Down

Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL