Repository navigation
gh-132493: Remove __annotations__ usage in inspect._signature_is_functionlike - #133415
Merged
JelleZijlstra merged 5 commits intoMay 10, 2025
Merged
JelleZijlstra merged 5 commits into
JelleZijlstra merged 5 commits into
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Sorry, something went wrong.
…s_functionlike This check is potentially problematic because it could force evaluation of annotations unnecessarily. This doesn't trigger for builtin objects (functions, classes, or modules) with annotations, but it could trigger for third-party objects. The check was not particularly useful anyway, because it succeeds if ``__annotations__`` is a dict or None, so the only thing this did was guard against objects that have an ``__annotations__`` attribute that is of some other type. That doesn't seem particularly useful, so I just removed the check.
serhiy-storchaka
approved these changes
May 9, 2025
serhiy-storchaka
left a comment
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM.
A nitpick about tests.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Comment thread
Lib/test/test_inspect/test_inspect.py
Outdated
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Author
|
Thanks! I am planning to backport this since it's better to get the annotation changes all at once in 3.14, and removing unnecessary evaluation of annotations feels like a bugfix. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Comment thread
Lib/test/test_inspect/test_inspect.py
Outdated
Copy link
Copy Markdown
|
Thanks @JelleZijlstra for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.14. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
miss-islington
pushed a commit
to miss-islington/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
May 10, 2025
…s_functionlike (pythonGH-133415) This check is potentially problematic because it could force evaluation of annotations unnecessarily. This doesn't trigger for builtin objects (functions, classes, or modules) with annotations, but it could trigger for third-party objects. The check was not particularly useful anyway, because it succeeds if ``__annotations__`` is a dict or None, so the only thing this did was guard against objects that have an ``__annotations__`` attribute that is of some other type. That doesn't seem particularly useful, so I just removed the check. (cherry picked from commit cb6596c) Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
|
GH-133796 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
JelleZijlstra
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 26, 2025
…is_functionlike (GH-133415) (#133796) gh-132493: Remove __annotations__ usage in inspect._signature_is_functionlike (GH-133415) This check is potentially problematic because it could force evaluation of annotations unnecessarily. This doesn't trigger for builtin objects (functions, classes, or modules) with annotations, but it could trigger for third-party objects. The check was not particularly useful anyway, because it succeeds if ``__annotations__`` is a dict or None, so the only thing this did was guard against objects that have an ``__annotations__`` attribute that is of some other type. That doesn't seem particularly useful, so I just removed the check. (cherry picked from commit cb6596c) Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com>
Pranjal095
pushed a commit
to Pranjal095/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2025
…s_functionlike (python#133415) This check is potentially problematic because it could force evaluation of annotations unnecessarily. This doesn't trigger for builtin objects (functions, classes, or modules) with annotations, but it could trigger for third-party objects. The check was not particularly useful anyway, because it succeeds if ``__annotations__`` is a dict or None, so the only thing this did was guard against objects that have an ``__annotations__`` attribute that is of some other type. That doesn't seem particularly useful, so I just removed the check.
taegyunkim
pushed a commit
to taegyunkim/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 4, 2025
…s_functionlike (python#133415) This check is potentially problematic because it could force evaluation of annotations unnecessarily. This doesn't trigger for builtin objects (functions, classes, or modules) with annotations, but it could trigger for third-party objects. The check was not particularly useful anyway, because it succeeds if ``__annotations__`` is a dict or None, so the only thing this did was guard against objects that have an ``__annotations__`` attribute that is of some other type. That doesn't seem particularly useful, so I just removed the check.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This check is potentially problematic because it could force evaluation of
annotations unnecessarily. This doesn't trigger for builtin objects (functions,
classes, or modules) with annotations, but it could trigger for third-party objects.
The check was not particularly useful anyway, because it succeeds if __annotations__
is a dict or None, so the only thing this did was guard against objects that have an
__annotations__ attribute that is of some other type. That doesn't seem particularly
useful, so I just removed the check.