## Summary
Fixes a bug observed by @AlexWaygood where `C[Any] <: C[object]` should
hold for a class that is covariant in its type parameter (and similar
subtyping relations involving dynamic types for other variance
configurations).
## Test Plan
New and updated Markdown tests
### Summary
This PR includes two changes, both of which are necessary to resolve
https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1196:
* For a generic class `C[T]`, we previously used `C[Unknown]` as the
upper bound of the `Self` type variable. There were two problems with
this. For one, when `Self` appeared in contravariant position, we would
materialize its upper bound to `Bottom[C[Unknown]]` (which might
simplify to `C[Never]` if `C` is covariant in `T`) when accessing
methods on `Top[C[Unknown]]`. This would result in `invalid-argument`
errors on the `self` parameter. Also, using an upper bound of
`C[Unknown]` would mean that inside methods, references to `T` would be
treated as `Unknown`. This could lead to false negatives. To fix this,
we now use `C[T]` (with a "nested" typevar) as the upper bound for
`Self` on `C[T]`.
* In order to make this work, we needed to allow assignability/subtyping
of inferable typevars to other types, since we now check assignability
of e.g. `C[int]` to `C[T]` (when checking assignability to the upper
bound of `Self`) when calling an instance-method on `C[int]` whose
`self` parameter is annotated as `self: Self` (or implicitly `Self`,
following https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18007).
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1196
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1208
### Test Plan
Regression tests for both issues.
This PR adds a new `ty_extensions.ConstraintSet` class, which is used to
expose constraint sets to our mdtest framework. This lets us write a
large collection of unit tests that exercise the invariants and rewrite
rules of our constraint set implementation.
As part of this, `is_assignable_to` and friends are updated to return a
`ConstraintSet` instead of a `bool`, and we implement
`ConstraintSet.__bool__` to return when a constraint set is always
satisfied. That lets us still use
`static_assert(is_assignable_to(...))`, since the assertion will coerce
the constraint set to a bool, and also lets us
`reveal_type(is_assignable_to(...))` to see more detail about
whether/when the two types are assignable. That lets us get rid of
`reveal_when_assignable_to` and friends, since they are now redundant
with the expanded capabilities of `is_assignable_to`.
## Summary
Adds support for generic PEP695 type aliases, e.g.,
```python
type A[T] = T
reveal_type(A[int]) # A[int]
```
Resolves https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/677.
## Summary
Support cases like the following, where we need the generic context to
include both `Self` and `T` (not just `T`):
```py
from typing import Self
class C:
def method[T](self: Self, arg: T): ...
C().method(1)
```
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1131
## Test Plan
Added regression test
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.
"Why would you do this? This looks like you just replaced `bool` with an
overly complex trait"
Yes that's correct!
This should be a no-op refactoring. It replaces all of the logic in our
assignability, subtyping, equivalence, and disjointness methods to work
over an arbitrary `Constraints` trait instead of only working on `bool`.
The methods that `Constraints` provides looks very much like what we get
from `bool`. But soon we will add a new impl of this trait, and some new
methods, that let us express "fuzzy" constraints that aren't always true
or false. (In particular, a constraint will express the upper and lower
bounds of the allowed specializations of a typevar.)
Even once we have that, most of the operations that we perform on
constraint sets will be the usual boolean operations, just on sets.
(`false` becomes empty/never; `true` becomes universe/always; `or`
becomes union; `and` becomes intersection; `not` becomes negation.) So
it's helpful to have this separate PR to refactor how we invoke those
operations without introducing the new functionality yet.
Note that we also have translations of `Option::is_some_and` and
`is_none_or`, and of `Iterator::any` and `all`, and that the `and`,
`or`, `when_any`, and `when_all` methods are meant to short-circuit,
just like the corresponding boolean operations. For constraint sets,
that depends on being able to implement the `is_always` and `is_never`
trait methods.
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
`Type::TypeVar` now distinguishes whether the typevar in question is
inferable or not.
A typevar is _not inferable_ inside the body of the generic class or
function that binds it:
```py
def f[T](t: T) -> T:
return t
```
The infered type of `t` in the function body is `TypeVar(T,
NotInferable)`. This represents how e.g. assignability checks need to be
valid for all possible specializations of the typevar. Most of the
existing assignability/etc logic only applies to non-inferable typevars.
Outside of the function body, the typevar is _inferable_:
```py
f(4)
```
Here, the parameter type of `f` is `TypeVar(T, Inferable)`. This
represents how e.g. assignability doesn't need to hold for _all_
specializations; instead, we need to find the constraints under which
this specific assignability check holds.
This is in support of starting to perform specialization inference _as
part of_ performing the assignability check at the call site.
In the [[POPL2015][]] paper, this concept is called _monomorphic_ /
_polymorphic_, but I thought _non-inferable_ / _inferable_ would be
clearer for us.
Depends on #19784
[POPL2015]: https://doi.org/10.1145/2676726.2676991
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
## 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 fixes our logic for binding a legacy typevar with its binding
context. (To recap, a legacy typevar starts out "unbound" when it is
first created, and each time it's used in a generic class or function,
we "bind" it with the corresponding `Definition`.)
We treat `typing.Self` the same as a legacy typevar, and so we apply
this binding logic to it too. Before, we were using the enclosing class
as its binding context. But that's not correct — it's the method where
`typing.Self` is used that binds the typevar. (Each invocation of the
method will find a new specialization of `Self` based on the specific
instance type containing the invoked method.)
This required plumbing through some additional state to the
`in_type_expression` method.
This also revealed that we weren't handling `Self`-typed instance
attributes correctly (but were coincidentally not getting the expected
false positive diagnostics).
This is subtle, and the root cause became more apparent with #19604,
since we now have many more cases of superclasses and subclasses using
different typevars. The issue is easiest to see in the following:
```py
class C[T]:
def __init__(self, t: T) -> None: ...
class D[U](C[T]):
pass
reveal_type(C(1)) # revealed: C[int]
reveal_type(D(1)) # should be: D[int]
```
When instantiating a generic class, the `__init__` method inherits the
generic context of that class. This lets our call binding machinery
infer a specialization for that context.
Prior to this PR, the instantiation of `C` worked just fine. Its
`__init__` method would inherit the `[T]` generic context, and we would
infer `{T = int}` as the specialization based on the argument
parameters.
It didn't work for `D`. The issue is that the `__init__` method was
inheriting the generic context of the class where `__init__` was defined
(here, `C` and `[T]`). At the call site, we would then infer `{T = int}`
as the specialization — but that wouldn't help us specialize `D[U]`,
since `D` does not have `T` in its generic context!
Instead, the `__init__` method should inherit the generic context of the
class that we are performing the lookup on (here, `D` and `[U]`). That
lets us correctly infer `{U = int}` as the specialization, which we can
successfully apply to `D[U]`.
(Note that `__init__` refers to `C`'s typevars in its signature, but
that's okay; our member lookup logic already applies the `T = U`
specialization when returning a member of `C` while performing a lookup
on `D`, transforming its signature from `(Self, T) -> None` to `(Self,
U) -> None`.)
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/588
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
This PR improves our generics solver such that we are able to solve the
`TypeVar` in this snippet to `int | str` (the union of the elements in
the heterogeneous tuple) by upcasting the heterogeneous tuple to its
pure-homogeneous-tuple supertype:
```py
def f[T](x: tuple[T, ...]) -> T:
return x[0]
def g(x: tuple[int, str]):
reveal_type(f(x))
```
## Test Plan
Mdtests. Some TODOs remain in the mdtest regarding solving `TypeVar`s
for mixed tuples, but I think this PR on its own is a significant step
forward for our generics solver when it comes to tuple types.
---------
Co-authored-by: Douglas Creager <dcreager@dcreager.net>
We now correctly exclude legacy typevars from enclosing scopes when
constructing the generic context for a generic function.
more detail:
A function is generic if it refers to legacy typevars in its signature:
```py
from typing import TypeVar
T = TypeVar("T")
def f(t: T) -> T:
return t
```
Generic functions are allowed to appear inside of other generic
contexts. When they do, they can refer to the typevars of those
enclosing generic contexts, and that should not rebind the typevar:
```py
from typing import TypeVar, Generic
T = TypeVar("T")
U = TypeVar("U")
class C(Generic[T]):
@staticmethod
def method(t: T, u: U) -> None: ...
# revealed: def method(t: int, u: U) -> None
reveal_type(C[int].method)
```
This substitution was already being performed correctly, but we were
also still including the enclosing legacy typevars in the method's own
generic context, which can be seen via `ty_extensions.generic_context`
(which has been updated to work on generic functions and methods):
```py
from ty_extensions import generic_context
# before: tuple[T, U]
# after: tuple[U]
reveal_type(generic_context(C[int].method))
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## 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`.
We already had support for homogeneous tuples (`tuple[int, ...]`). This
PR extends this to also support mixed tuples (`tuple[str, str,
*tuple[int, ...], str str]`).
A mixed tuple consists of a fixed-length (possibly empty) prefix and
suffix, and a variable-length portion in the middle. Every element of
the variable-length portion must be of the same type. A homogeneous
tuple is then just a mixed tuple with an empty prefix and suffix.
The new data representation uses different Rust types for a fixed-length
(aka heterogeneous) tuple. Another option would have been to use the
`VariableLengthTuple` representation for all tuples, and to wrap the
"variable + suffix" portion in an `Option`. I don't think that would
simplify the method implementations much, though, since we would still
have a 2×2 case analysis for most of them.
One wrinkle is that the definition of the `tuple` class in the typeshed
has a single typevar, and canonically represents a homogeneous tuple.
When getting the class of a tuple instance, that means that we have to
summarize our detailed mixed tuple type information into its
"homogeneous supertype". (We were already doing this for heterogeneous
types.)
A similar thing happens when concatenating two mixed tuples: the
variable-length portion and suffix of the LHS, and the prefix and
variable-length portion of the RHS, all get unioned into the
variable-length portion of the result. The LHS prefix and RHS suffix
carry through unchanged.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## 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
Came across this while debugging some ecosystem changes in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18347. I think the meta-type of a
typevar-annotated variable should be equal to `type`, not `<class
'object'>`.
## Test Plan
New Markdown tests.
## Summary
Allow a typevar to be callable if it is bound to a callable type, or
constrained to callable types.
I spent some time digging into why this support didn't fall out
naturally, and ultimately the reason is that we look up `__call__` on
the meta type (since its a dunder), and our implementation of
`Type::to_meta_type` for `Type::Callable` does not return a type with
`__call__`.
A more general solution here would be to have `Type::to_meta_type` for
`Type::Callable` synthesize a protocol with `__call__` and return an
intersection with that protocol (since for a type to be callable, we
know its meta-type must have `__call__`). That solution could in
principle also replace the special-case handling of `Type::Callable`
itself, here in `Type::bindings`. But that more general approach would
also be slower, and our protocol support isn't quite ready for that yet,
and handling this directly in `Type::bindings` is really not bad.
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/480
## Test Plan
Added mdtests.
## 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>
Follows on from (and depends on)
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18021.
This updates our function specialization inference to infer type
mappings from parameters that are generic protocols.
For now, this only works when the argument _explicitly_ implements the
protocol by listing it as a base class. (We end up using exactly the
same logic as for generic classes in #18021.) For this to work with
classes that _implicitly_ implement the protocol, we will have to check
the types of the protocol members (which we are not currently doing), so
that we can infer the specialization of the protocol that the class
implements.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
This updates our function specialization inference to infer type
mappings from parameters that are generic aliases, e.g.:
```py
def f[T](x: list[T]) -> T: ...
reveal_type(f(["a", "b"])) # revealed: str
```
Though note that we're still inferring the type of list literals as
`list[Unknown]`, so for now we actually need something like the
following in our tests:
```py
def _(x: list[str]):
reveal_type(f(x)) # revealed: str
```
We were not inducting into instance types and subclass-of types when
looking for legacy typevars, nor when apply specializations.
This addresses
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17832#discussion_r2081502056
```py
from __future__ import annotations
from typing import TypeVar, Any, reveal_type
S = TypeVar("S")
class Foo[T]:
def method(self, other: Foo[S]) -> Foo[T | S]: ... # type: ignore[invalid-return-type]
def f(x: Foo[Any], y: Foo[Any]):
reveal_type(x.method(y)) # revealed: `Foo[Any | S]`, but should be `Foo[Any]`
```
We were not detecting that `S` made `method` generic, since we were not
finding it when searching the function signature for legacy typevars.
