Rename Red Knot (#17820)

crates/ty_python_semantic/resources/mdtest/doc/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+This directory contains user-facing documentation, but also doubles as an extended test suite that
+makes sure that our documentation stays up to date.

crates/ty_python_semantic/resources/mdtest/doc/public_type_undeclared_symbols.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+# Public type of undeclared symbols
+
+## Summary
+
+One major deviation from the behavior of existing Python type checkers is our handling of 'public'
+types for undeclared symbols. This is best illustrated with an example:
+
+```py
+class Wrapper:
+    value = None
+
+wrapper = Wrapper()
+
+reveal_type(wrapper.value)  # revealed: Unknown | None
+
+wrapper.value = 1
+```
+
+Mypy and Pyright both infer a type of `None` for the type of `wrapper.value`. Consequently, both
+tools emit an error when trying to assign `1` to `wrapper.value`. But there is nothing wrong with
+this program. Emitting an error here violates the [gradual guarantee] which states that *"Removing
+type annotations (making the program more dynamic) should not result in additional static type
+errors."*: If `value` were annotated with `int | None` here, Mypy and Pyright would not emit any
+errors.
+
+By inferring `Unknown | None` instead, we allow arbitrary values to be assigned to `wrapper.value`.
+This is a deliberate choice to prevent false positive errors on untyped code.
+
+More generally, we infer `Unknown | T_inferred` for undeclared symbols, where `T_inferred` is the
+inferred type of the right-hand side of the assignment. This gradual type represents an *unknown*
+fully-static type that is *at least as large as* `T_inferred`. It accurately describes our static
+knowledge about this type. In the example above, we don't know what values `wrapper.value` could
+possibly contain, but we *do know* that `None` is a possibility. This allows us to catch errors
+where `wrapper.value` is used in a way that is incompatible with `None`:
+
+```py
+def accepts_int(i: int) -> None:
+    pass
+
+def f(w: Wrapper) -> None:
+    # This is fine
+    v: int | None = w.value
+
+    # This function call is incorrect, because `w.value` could be `None`. We therefore emit the following
+    # error: "Argument to this function is incorrect: Expected `int`, found `Unknown | None`"
+    c = accepts_int(w.value)
+```
+
+## Explicit lack of knowledge
+
+The following example demonstrates how Mypy and Pyright's type inference of fully-static types in
+these situations can lead to false-negatives, even though everything appears to be (statically)
+typed. To make this a bit more realistic, imagine that `OptionalInt` is imported from an external,
+untyped module:
+
+`optional_int.py`:
+
+```py
+class OptionalInt:
+    value = 10
+
+def reset(o):
+    o.value = None
+```
+
+It is then used like this:
+
+```py
+from optional_int import OptionalInt, reset
+
+o = OptionalInt()
+reset(o)  # Oh no...
+
+# Mypy and Pyright infer a fully-static type of `int` here, which appears to make the
+# subsequent division operation safe -- but it is not. We infer the following type:
+reveal_type(o.value)  # revealed: Unknown | Literal[10]
+
+print(o.value // 2)  # Runtime error!
+```
+
+We do not catch this mistake either, but we accurately reflect our lack of knowledge about
+`o.value`. Together with a possible future type-checker mode that would detect the prevalence of
+dynamic types, this could help developers catch such mistakes.
+
+## Stricter behavior
+
+Users can always opt in to stricter behavior by adding type annotations. For the `OptionalInt`
+class, this would probably be:
+
+```py
+class OptionalInt:
+    value: int | None = 10
+
+o = OptionalInt()
+
+# The following public type is now
+# revealed: int | None
+reveal_type(o.value)
+
+# Incompatible assignments are now caught:
+# error: "Object of type `Literal["a"]` is not assignable to attribute `value` of type `int | None`"
+o.value = "a"
+```
+
+## What is meant by 'public' type?
+
+We apply different semantics depending on whether a symbol is accessed from the same scope in which
+it was originally defined, or whether it is accessed from an external scope. External scopes will
+see the symbol's "public type", which has been discussed above. But within the same scope the symbol
+was defined in, we use a narrower type of `T_inferred` for undeclared symbols. This is because, from
+the perspective of this scope, there is no way that the value of the symbol could have been
+reassigned from external scopes. For example:
+
+```py
+class Wrapper:
+    value = None
+
+    # Type as seen from the same scope:
+    reveal_type(value)  # revealed: None
+
+# Type as seen from another scope:
+reveal_type(Wrapper.value)  # revealed: Unknown | None
+```
+
+[gradual guarantee]: https://typing.python.org/en/latest/spec/concepts.html#the-gradual-guarantee