| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
A note about commit messages / PR titles: something does something is ambiguous because it could be describing wrong behaviour that the code did before the change, or new correct behaviour. Similar to the docstring convention (method columnize: Display a list of blah by blah), a good commit message or PR title should show what the changes do:
So for this PR (if I understand current title correctly) it could be:
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@merwok thanks, it is way more readable now! Wording (and writing in general) in English is something I really try to improve. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@Zac-HD do we rely on this behavior in hypothesis? 🤔 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
It's certainly observable by our users, and would probably make some of our tests fail. That said, I support the more consistent design proposed in the BPO issue, and we'll be fine carrying another clause in our type hints wrapper in Hypothesis. Probably important to reference the relevant PEP (section of 484, I think?) in the changelog though. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Will this be applied in Python 3.11, or is it intended to be back-ported to previous versions? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
In my opinion this should be 3.11+ only 🤔 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I have production code that currently assumes parameters that default to None are implicitly Optional; the required changes to accommodate this are trivial on my part, and I can certainly plan within the 3.11 time horizon. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In my opinion this should be 3.11+ only 🤔
Yeah. This is definitely a breaking change so it should be 3.11+ only. I wonder how many runtime checkers are affected or even use get_type_hints for that matter? @samuelcolvin can I trouble you for an opinion on this please? @Tinche too for cattrs too please. Thank you.
In short, typing.get_type_hints automatically wraps a type annotation with Optional if it sees a default None. This PR proposes to cease that behavior.
Sorry, something went wrong.
@Fidget-Spinner I'm totally fine with this, correct change in my opinion. Just out of curiosity, does this change only apply to function parameters or class members too? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Co-authored-by: Ken Jin <28750310+Fidget-Spinner@users.noreply.github.com>
|
@Tinche for classes Optional was never added implictly (which is another point why we should fix this inconsistency). Here are two examples, main and 3.9: » ./python.exe
Python 3.11.0a3+ (heads/main:e13cdca0f5, Jan 11 2022, 12:43:49) [Clang 11.0.0 (clang-1100.0.33.16)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import typing
>>> class A:
... x: int = None
...
>>> typing.get_type_hints(A)
{'x': <class 'int'>}» python
Python 3.9.9 (main, Dec 21 2021, 11:35:28)
[Clang 11.0.0 (clang-1100.0.33.16)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import typing
>>> class A:
... x: int = None
...
>>> typing.get_type_hints(A)
{'x': <class 'int'>}However, I can't find a test case for this 🤔 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Thanks for the info! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Thanks for the great question! 👍 I've added this corner case to our tests in a separate PR: #30535 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like this change, just a comment on the docs.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| ``Optional`` annotation is not added implicitly anymore | ||
| when ``None`` default is used for a function argument. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the wording in the removed docs better. Suggestion:
"Previously, Optional[t] was added for function and method annotations if a default value equal to None was set. Now the annotation is returned unchanged."
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great addition!
Sorry, something went wrong.
Thanks @Fidget-Spinner for asking my opinion, really useful to get a heads up about things like this. I don't think it will affect pydantic, if it does we can take care of it when adding support for 3.11. I'm happy with this change provided it's no back-ported to other versions of python. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@gvanrossum this is another one I'd like to merge.
@gpshead previously requested changes, but his request was addressed.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IIUC, @gpshead mist still approve it.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Since python-3.11, `typing.get_type_hints()` will not add Optional[t] to type annotations even if a default value for function argument is None. refs: python/cpython#30304 (bpo-46195)
|
Just re-found this issue because Hypothesis does indeed have a test for this 😂 Let's mention this change in https://docs.python.org/3.11/whatsnew/3.11.html, not just the docs for typing.get_type_hints(). |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
Useful related links:
https://bugs.python.org/issue46195