Repository navigation
Add tests for Final/Literal interaction - #2352
srittau wants to merge 7 commits into
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
It means that if the automated conformance fails, it is your responsibility to analyze the nature of the gap for that type checker, and decide whether conformant = 'Fail' or conformant = 'Partial' is more appropriate. In the latter case you should also add a notes field describing the gap in conformance. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| # Specification: https://typing.readthedocs.io/en/latest/spec/qualifiers.html#id1 | ||
|
|
||
| ID1: Final[int] = 1 | ||
| assert_type(ID1, Literal[int]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Literal[int] is not a valid type expression (and thus every type checker correctly errors on it). Same with Literal[float] below.
Did you mean to assert the type is just int? If so, I don't think that's an assertion supported by the spec. https://typing.python.org/en/latest/spec/literal.html#interactions-with-final explicitly says that in this exact scenario, an inference of either int or Literal[1] is fine.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting, another contradiction in the spec.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
What is your intention for this PR vs #2353 ? I think it would be simpler and preferable to just have one combined PR that modifies both the spec text and the conformance suite, rather than two separate PRs. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sure, I can combine them if you prefer. Considering that both are more or less independent (since the are only refactorings/documentation of the status quo) I thought it would be easier to review separately. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I don't have strong feelings; if you prefer to separate them, that's fine. I would personally find it easier to review them together; it makes it easier to validate that we have the right tests for the clarified spec text. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Will merge when I get home. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
This is my first time changing the conformance tests, did I do it correctly? What does "conformant is required when conformance_automated is 'Fail'" mean?
Also cf. #2351. If that issue and this PR is accepted I would like to add quotes from the (changed) spec to the tests before merging this.