## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1218.
This bug doesn't currently cause us any real-world issues, because we
don't yet understand the signatures typeshed gives us for `isinstance()`
and `issubclass()` (typeshed's annotations there use PEP-613 type
aliases). #20107 demonstrates that this will start causing us issues as
soon as we add support for PEP-613 aliases, however, so it makes sense
to fix it now.
## Test Plan
Added mdtests
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/377.
We were treating any function as being assignable to any callback
protocol, because we were trying to figure out a type's `Callable`
supertype by looking up the `__call__` attribute on the type's
meta-type. But a function-literal's meta-type is `types.FunctionType`,
and `types.FunctionType.__call__` is `(...) -> Any`, which is not very
helpful!
While working on this PR, I also realised that assignability between
class-literals and callback protocols was somewhat broken too, so I
fixed that at the same time.
## Test Plan
Added mdtests
This PR adds two new `ty_extensions` functions,
`reveal_when_assignable_to` and `reveal_when_subtype_of`. These are
closely related to the existing `is_assignable_to` and `is_subtype_of`,
but instead of returning when the property (always) holds, it produces a
diagnostic that describes _when_ the property holds. (This will let us
construct mdtests that print out constraints that are not always true or
always false — though we don't currently have any instances of those.)
I did not replace _every_ occurrence of the `is_property` variants in
the mdtest suite, instead focusing on the generics-related tests where
it will be important to see the full detail of the constraint sets.
As part of this, I also updated the mdtest harness to accept the shorter
`# revealed:` assertion format for more than just `reveal_type`, and
updated the existing uses of `reveal_protocol_interface` to take
advantage of this.
Reverts astral-sh/ruff#20156. As @sharkdp noted in his post-merge
review, there were several issues with that PR that I didn't spot before
merging — but I'm out for four days now, and would rather not leave
things in an inconsistent state for that long. I'll revisit this on
Wednesday.
## Summary
This error is about assigning to attributes rather than reading
attributes, so I think `invalid-assignment` makes more sense than
`invalid-attribute-access`
## Test Plan
existing mdtests updated
## Summary
For PEP 695 generic functions and classes, there is an extra "type
params scope" (a child of the outer scope, and wrapping the body scope)
in which the type parameters are defined; class bases and function
parameter/return annotations are resolved in that type-params scope.
This PR fixes some longstanding bugs in how we resolve name loads from
inside these PEP 695 type parameter scopes, and also defers type
inference of PEP 695 typevar bounds/constraints/default, so we can
handle cycles without panicking.
We were previously treating these type-param scopes as lazy nested
scopes, which is wrong. In fact they are eager nested scopes; the class
`C` here inherits `int`, not `str`, and previously we got that wrong:
```py
Base = int
class C[T](Base): ...
Base = str
```
But certain syntactic positions within type param scopes (typevar
bounds/constraints/defaults) are lazy at runtime, and we should use
deferred name resolution for them. This also means they can have cycles;
in order to handle that without panicking in type inference, we need to
actually defer their type inference until after we have constructed the
`TypeVarInstance`.
PEP 695 does specify that typevar bounds and constraints cannot be
generic, and that typevar defaults can only reference prior typevars,
not later ones. This reduces the scope of (valid from the type-system
perspective) cycles somewhat, although cycles are still possible (e.g.
`class C[T: list[C]]`). And this is a type-system-only restriction; from
the runtime perspective an "invalid" case like `class C[T: T]` actually
works fine.
I debated whether to implement the PEP 695 restrictions as a way to
avoid some cycles up-front, but I ended up deciding against that; I'd
rather model the runtime name-resolution semantics accurately, and
implement the PEP 695 restrictions as a separate diagnostic on top.
(This PR doesn't yet implement those diagnostics, thus some `# TODO:
error` in the added tests.)
Introducing the possibility of cyclic typevars made typevar display
potentially stack overflow. For now I've handled this by simply removing
typevar details (bounds/constraints/default) from typevar display. This
impacts display of two kinds of types. If you `reveal_type(T)` on an
unbound `T` you now get just `typing.TypeVar` instead of
`typing.TypeVar("T", ...)` where `...` is the bound/constraints/default.
This matches pyright and mypy; pyrefly uses `type[TypeVar[T]]` which
seems a bit confusing, but does include the name. (We could easily
include the name without cycle issues, if there's a syntax we like for
that.)
It also means that displaying a generic function type like `def f[T:
int](x: T) -> T: ...` now displays as `f[T](x: T) -> T` instead of `f[T:
int](x: T) -> T`. This matches pyright and pyrefly; mypy does include
bound/constraints/defaults of typevars in function/callable type
display. If we wanted to add this, we would either need to thread a
visitor through all the type display code, or add a `decycle` type
transformation that replaced recursive reoccurrence of a type with a
marker.
## Test Plan
Added mdtests and modified existing tests to improve their correctness.
After this PR, there's only a single remaining py-fuzzer seed in the
0-500 range that panics! (Before this PR, there were 10; the fuzzer
likes to generate cyclic PEP 695 syntax.)
## Ecosystem report
It's all just the changes to `TypeVar` display.
This PR introduces a few related changes:
- We now keep track of each time a legacy typevar is bound in a
different generic context (e.g. class, function), and internally create
a new `TypeVarInstance` for each usage. This means the rest of the code
can now assume that salsa-equivalent `TypeVarInstance`s refer to the
same typevar, even taking into account that legacy typevars can be used
more than once.
- We also go ahead and track the binding context of PEP 695 typevars.
That's _much_ easier to track since we have the binding context right
there during type inference.
- With that in place, we can now include the name of the binding context
when rendering typevars (e.g. `T@f` instead of `T`)
## Summary
We currently infer a `@Todo` type whenever we access an attribute on an
intersection type with negative components. This can happen very
naturally. Consequently, this `@Todo` type is rather pervasive and hides
a lot of true positives that ty could otherwise detect:
```py
class Foo:
attr: int = 1
def _(f: Foo | None):
if f:
reveal_type(f) # Foo & ~AlwaysFalsy
reveal_type(f.attr) # now: int, previously: @Todo
```
The changeset here proposes to handle member access on these
intersection types by simply ignoring all negative contributions. This
is not always ideal: a negative contribution like `~<Protocol with
members 'attr'>` could be a hint that `.attr` should not be accessible
on the full intersection type. The behavior can certainly be improved in
the future, but this seems like a reasonable initial step to get rid of
this unnecessary `@Todo` type.
## Ecosystem analysis
There are quite a few changes here. I spot-checked them and found one
bug where attribute access on pure negation types (`~P == object & ~P`)
would not allow attributes on `object` to be accessed. After that was
fixed, I only see true positives and known problems. The fact that a lot
of `unused-ignore-comment` diagnostics go away are also evidence for the
fact that this touches a sensitive area, where static analysis clashes
with dynamically adding attributes to objects:
```py
… # type: ignore # Runtime attribute access
```
## Test Plan
Updated tests.
## Summary
This PR implements the following pieces of `Protocol` semantics:
1. A protocol with a method member that does not have a fully static
signature should not be considered fully static. I.e., this protocol is
not fully static because `Foo.x` has no return type; we previously
incorrectly considered that it was:
```py
class Foo(Protocol):
def f(self): ...
```
2. Two protocols `P1` and `P2`, both with method members `x`, should be
considered equivalent if the signature of `P1.x` is equivalent to the
signature of `P2.x`. Currently we do not recognize this.
Implementing these semantics requires distinguishing between method
members and non-method members. The stored type of a method member must
be eagerly upcast to a `Callable` type when collecting the protocol's
interface: doing otherwise would mean that it would be hard to implement
equivalence of protocols even in the face of differently ordered unions,
since the two equivalent protocols would have different Salsa IDs even
when normalized.
The semantics implemented by this PR are that we consider something a
method member if:
1. It is accessible on the class itself; and
2. It is a function-like callable: a callable type that also has a
`__get__` method, meaning it can be used as a method when accessed on
instances.
Note that the spec has complicated things to say about classmethod
members and staticmethod members. These semantics are not implemented by
this PR; they are all deferred for now.
The infrastructure added in this PR fixes bugs in its own right, but
also lays the groundwork for implementing subtyping and assignability
rules for method members of protocols. A (currently failing) test is
added to verify this.
## Test Plan
mdtests
## Summary
Allow declared-only class-level attributes to be accessed on the class:
```py
class C:
attr: int
C.attr # this is now allowed
```
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/384
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/553
## Ecosystem analysis
* We see many removed `unresolved-attribute` false-positives for code
that makes use of sqlalchemy, as expected (see changes for `prefect`)
* We see many removed `call-non-callable` false-positives for uses of
`pytest.skip` and similar, as expected
* Most new diagnostics seem to be related to cases like the following,
where we previously inferred `int` for `Derived().x`, but now we infer
`int | None`. I think this should be a
conflicting-declarations/bad-override error anyway? The new behavior may
even be preferred here?
```py
class Base:
x: int | None
class Derived(Base):
def __init__(self):
self.x: int = 1
```
## Summary
This just replaces one temporary solution to recursive protocols (the
`SelfReference` mechanism) with another one (track seen types when
recursively descending in `normalize` and replace recursive references
with `Any`). But this temporary solution can handle mutually-recursive
types, not just self-referential ones, and it's sufficient for the
primer ecosystem and some other projects we are testing on to no longer
stack overflow.
The follow-up here will be to properly handle these self-references
instead of replacing them with `Any`.
We will also eventually need cycle detection on more recursive-descent
type transformations and tests.
## Test Plan
Existing tests (including recursive-protocol tests) and primer.
Added mdtest for mutually-recursive protocols that stack-overflowed
before this PR.
## Summary
Having a recursive type method to check whether a type is fully static
is inefficient, unnecessary, and makes us overly strict about subtyping
relations.
It's inefficient because we end up re-walking the same types many times
to check for fully-static-ness.
It's unnecessary because we can check relations involving the dynamic
type appropriately, depending whether the relation is subtyping or
assignability.
We use the subtyping relation to simplify unions and intersections. We
can usefully consider that `S <: T` for gradual types also, as long as
it remains true that `S | T` is equivalent to `T` and `S & T` is
equivalent to `S`.
One conservative definition (implemented here) that satisfies this
requirement is that we consider `S <: T` if, for every possible pair of
materializations `S'` and `T'`, `S' <: T'`. Or put differently the top
materialization of `S` (`S+` -- the union of all possible
materializations of `S`) is a subtype of the bottom materialization of
`T` (`T-` -- the intersection of all possible materializations of `T`).
In the most basic cases we can usefully say that `Any <: object` and
that `Never <: Any`, and we can handle more complex cases inductively
from there.
This definition of subtyping for gradual subtypes is not reflexive
(`Any` is not a subtype of `Any`).
As a corollary, we also remove `is_gradual_equivalent_to` --
`is_equivalent_to` now has the meaning that `is_gradual_equivalent_to`
used to have. If necessary, we could restore an
`is_fully_static_equivalent_to` or similar (which would not do an
`is_fully_static` pre-check of the types, but would instead pass a
relation-kind enum down through a recursive equivalence check, similar
to `has_relation_to`), but so far this doesn't appear to be necessary.
Credit to @JelleZijlstra for the observation that `is_fully_static` is
unnecessary and overly restrictive on subtyping.
There is another possible definition of gradual subtyping: instead of
requiring that `S+ <: T-`, we could instead require that `S+ <: T+` and
`S- <: T-`. In other words, instead of requiring all materializations of
`S` to be a subtype of every materialization of `T`, we just require
that every materialization of `S` be a subtype of _some_ materialization
of `T`, and that every materialization of `T` be a supertype of some
materialization of `S`. This definition also preserves the core
invariant that `S <: T` implies that `S | T = T` and `S & T = S`, and it
restores reflexivity: under this definition, `Any` is a subtype of
`Any`, and for any equivalent types `S` and `T`, `S <: T` and `T <: S`.
But unfortunately, this definition breaks transitivity of subtyping,
because nominal subclasses in Python use assignability ("consistent
subtyping") to define acceptable overrides. This means that we may have
a class `A` with `def method(self) -> Any` and a subtype `B(A)` with
`def method(self) -> int`, since `int` is assignable to `Any`. This
means that if we have a protocol `P` with `def method(self) -> Any`, we
would have `B <: A` (from nominal subtyping) and `A <: P` (`Any` is a
subtype of `Any`), but not `B <: P` (`int` is not a subtype of `Any`).
Breaking transitivity of subtyping is not tenable, so we don't use this
definition of subtyping.
## Test Plan
Existing tests (modified in some cases to account for updated
semantics.)
Stable property tests pass at a million iterations:
`QUICKCHECK_TESTS=1000000 cargo test -p ty_python_semantic -- --ignored
types::property_tests::stable`
### Changes to property test type generation
Since we no longer have a method of categorizing built types as
fully-static or not-fully-static, I had to add a previously-discussed
feature to the property tests so that some tests can build types that
are known by construction to be fully static, because there are still
properties that only apply to fully-static types (for example,
reflexiveness of subtyping.)
## Changes to handling of `*args, **kwargs` signatures
This PR "discovered" that, once we allow non-fully-static types to
participate in subtyping under the above definitions, `(*args: Any,
**kwargs: Any) -> Any` is now a subtype of `() -> object`. This is true,
if we take a literal interpretation of the former signature: all
materializations of the parameters `*args: Any, **kwargs: Any` can
accept zero arguments, making the former signature a subtype of the
latter. But the spec actually says that `*args: Any, **kwargs: Any`
should be interpreted as equivalent to `...`, and that makes a
difference here: `(...) -> Any` is not a subtype of `() -> object`,
because (unlike a literal reading of `(*args: Any, **kwargs: Any)`),
`...` can materialize to _any_ signature, including a signature with
required positional arguments.
This matters for this PR because it makes the "any two types are both
assignable to their union" property test fail if we don't implement the
equivalence to `...`. Because `FunctionType.__call__` has the signature
`(*args: Any, **kwargs: Any) -> Any`, and if we take that at face value
it's a subtype of `() -> object`, making `FunctionType` a subtype of `()
-> object)` -- but then a function with a required argument is also a
subtype of `FunctionType`, but not a subtype of `() -> object`. So I
went ahead and implemented the equivalence to `...` in this PR.
## Ecosystem analysis
* Most of the ecosystem report are cases of improved union/intersection
simplification. For example, we can now simplify a union like `bool |
(bool & Unknown) | Unknown` to simply `bool | Unknown`, because we can
now observe that every possible materialization of `bool & Unknown` is
still a subtype of `bool` (whereas before we would set aside `bool &
Unknown` as a not-fully-static type.) This is clearly an improvement.
* The `possibly-unresolved-reference` errors in sockeye, pymongo,
ignite, scrapy and others are true positives for conditional imports
that were formerly silenced by bogus conflicting-declarations (which we
currently don't issue a diagnostic for), because we considered two
different declarations of `Unknown` to be conflicting (we used
`is_equivalent_to` not `is_gradual_equivalent_to`). In this PR that
distinction disappears and all equivalence is gradual, so a declaration
of `Unknown` no longer conflicts with a declaration of `Unknown`, which
then results in us surfacing the possibly-unbound error.
* We will now issue "redundant cast" for casting from a typevar with a
gradual bound to the same typevar (the hydra-zen diagnostic). This seems
like an improvement.
* The new diagnostics in bandersnatch are interesting. For some reason
primer in CI seems to be checking bandersnatch on Python 3.10 (not yet
sure why; this doesn't happen when I run it locally). But bandersnatch
uses `enum.StrEnum`, which doesn't exist on 3.10. That makes the `class
SimpleDigest(StrEnum)` a class that inherits from `Unknown` (and
bypasses our current TODO handling for accessing attributes on enum
classes, since we don't recognize it as an enum class at all). This PR
improves our understanding of assignability to classes that inherit from
`Any` / `Unknown`, and we now recognize that a string literal is not
assignable to a class inheriting `Any` or `Unknown`.
## Summary
As well as excluding a hardcoded set of special attributes, CPython at
runtime also excludes any attributes or declarations starting with
`_abc_` from the set of members that make up a protocol interface. I
missed this in my initial implementation.
This is a bit of a CPython implementation detail, but I do think it's
important that we try to model the runtime as best we can here. The
closer we are to the runtime behaviour, the closer we come to sound
behaviour when narrowing types from `isinstance()` checks against
runtime-checkable protocols (for example)
## Test Plan
Extended an existing mdtest
## 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
## Summary
Use a self-reference "marker" ~~and fixpoint iteration~~ to solve the
stack overflow problems with recursive protocols. This is not pretty and
somewhat tedious, but seems to work fine. Much better than all my
fixpoint-iteration attempts anyway.
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/93
## Test Plan
New Markdown tests.
## Summary
A recursive protocol like the following would previously lead to stack
overflows when attempting to create the union type for the `P | None`
member, because `UnionBuilder` checks if element types are fully static,
and the fully-static check on `P` would in turn list all members and
check whether all of them were fully static, leading to a cycle.
```py
from __future__ import annotations
from typing import Protocol
class P(Protocol):
parent: P | None
```
Here, we make the fully-static check on protocols a salsa query and add
fixpoint iteration, starting with `true` as the initial value (assume
that the recursive protocol is fully-static). If the recursive protocol
has any non-fully-static members, we still return `false` when
re-executing the query (see newly added tests).
closes#17861
## Test Plan
Added regression test
