## Summary
An issue seen here https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/500
The `__init__` method of dataclasses had no inherited generic context,
so we could not infer the type of an instance from a constructor call
with generics
## Test Plan
Add tests to classes.md` in generics folder
## Summary
It doesn't seem to be necessary for our generics implementation to carry
the `GenericContext` in the `ClassBase` variants. Removing it simplifies
the code, fixes many TODOs about `Generic` or `Protocol` appearing
multiple times in MROs when each should only appear at most once, and
allows us to more accurately detect runtime errors that occur due to
`Generic` or `Protocol` appearing multiple times in a class's bases.
In order to remove the `GenericContext` from the `ClassBase` variant, it
turns out to be necessary to emulate
`typing._GenericAlias.__mro_entries__`, or we end up with a large number
of false-positive `inconsistent-mro` errors. This PR therefore also does
that.
Lastly, this PR fixes the inferred MROs of PEP-695 generic classes,
which implicitly inherit from `Generic` even if they have no explicit
bases.
## Test Plan
mdtests
This implements the stopgap approach described in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/336#issuecomment-2880532213 for
handling literal types in generic class specializations.
With this approach, we will promote any literal to its instance type,
but _only_ when inferring a generic class specialization from a
constructor call:
```py
class C[T]:
def __init__(self, x: T) -> None: ...
reveal_type(C("string")) # revealed: C[str]
```
If you specialize the class explicitly, we still use whatever type you
provide, even if it's a literal:
```py
from typing import Literal
reveal_type(C[Literal[5]](5)) # revealed: C[Literal[5]]
```
And this doesn't apply at all to generic functions:
```py
def f[T](x: T) -> T:
return x
reveal_type(f(5)) # revealed: Literal[5]
```
---
As part of making this happen, we also generalize the `TypeMapping`
machinery. This provides a way to apply a function to type, returning a
new type. Complicating matters is that for function literals, we have to
apply the mapping lazily, since the function's signature is not created
until (and if) someone calls its `signature` method. That means we have
to stash away the mappings that we want to apply to the signatures
parameter/return annotations once we do create it. This requires some
minor `Cow` shenanigans to continue working for partial specializations.
This is a follow-on to #18155. For the example raised in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/370:
```py
import tempfile
with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as tmp: ...
```
the new logic would notice that both overloads of `TemporaryDirectory`
match, and combine their specializations, resulting in an inferred type
of `str | bytes`.
This PR updates the logic to match our other handling of other calls,
where we only keep the _first_ matching overload. The result for this
example then becomes `str`, matching the runtime behavior. (We still do
not implement the full [overload resolution
algorithm](https://typing.python.org/en/latest/spec/overload.html#overload-call-evaluation)
from the spec.)
This primarily comes up with annotated `self` parameters in
constructors:
```py
class C[T]:
def __init__(self: C[int]): ...
```
Here, we want infer a specialization of `{T = int}` for a call that hits
this overload.
Normally when inferring a specialization of a function call, typevars
appear in the parameter annotations, and not in the argument types. In
this case, this is reversed: we need to verify that the `self` argument
(`C[T]`, as we have not yet completed specialization inference) is
assignable to the parameter type `C[int]`.
To do this, we simply look for a typevar/type in both directions when
performing inference, and apply the inferred specialization to argument
types as well as parameter types before verifying assignability.
As a wrinkle, this exposed that we were not checking
subtyping/assignability for function literals correctly. Our function
literal representation includes an optional specialization that should
be applied to the signature. Before, function literals were considered
subtypes of (assignable to) each other only if they were identical Salsa
objects. Two function literals with different specializations should
still be considered subtypes of (assignable to) each other if those
specializations result in the same function signature (typically because
the function doesn't use the typevars in the specialization).
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/370
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/100
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/258
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
Function literals have an optional specialization, which is applied to
the parameter/return type annotations lazily when the function's
signature is requested. We were previously only applying this
specialization to the final overload of an overloaded function.
This manifested most visibly for `list.__add__`, which has an overloaded
definition in the typeshed:
b398b83631/crates/ty_vendored/vendor/typeshed/stdlib/builtins.pyi (L1069-L1072)
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/314
@AlexWaygood discovered that even though we've been propagating
specializations to _parent_ base classes correctly, we haven't been
passing them on to _grandparent_ base classes:
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17832#issuecomment-2854360969
```py
class Bar[T]:
x: T
class Baz[T](Bar[T]): ...
class Spam[T](Baz[T]): ...
reveal_type(Spam[int]().x) # revealed: `T`, but should be `int`
```
This PR updates the MRO machinery to apply the current specialization
when starting to iterate the MRO of each base class.
If a typevar is declared as having a default, we shouldn't require a
type to be specified for that typevar when explicitly specializing a
generic class:
```py
class WithDefault[T, U = int]: ...
reveal_type(WithDefault[str]()) # revealed: WithDefault[str, int]
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Fixes
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17832#issuecomment-2851224968. We
had a comment that we did not need to apply specializations to generic
aliases, or to the bound `self` of a bound method, because they were
already specialized. But they might be specialized with a type variable,
which _does_ need to be specialized, in the case of a "multi-step"
specialization, such as:
```py
class LinkedList[T]: ...
class C[U]:
def method(self) -> LinkedList[U]:
return LinkedList[U]()
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
