## Summary
The solver is currently order-dependent, and will choose a supertype
over the exact type if it appears earlier in the list of constraints. We
could be smarter and try to choose the most precise subtype, but I
imagine this is something the new constraint solver will fix anyways,
and this fixes the issue showing up on
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/21070.
This PR adds a new `satisfied_by_all_typevar` method, which implements
one of the final steps of actually using these dang constraint sets.
Constraint sets exist to help us check assignability and subtyping of
types in the presence of typevars. We construct a constraint set
describing the conditions under which assignability holds between the
two types. Then we check whether that constraint set is satisfied for
the valid specializations of the relevant typevars (which is this new
method).
We also add a new `ty_extensions.ConstraintSet` method so that we can
test this method's behavior in mdtests, before hooking it up to the rest
of the specialization inference machinery.
## Summary
We currently perform a subtyping check instead of the intended subclass
check (and the subtyping check is confusingly named `is_subclass_of`).
This showed up in https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/21070.
## Summary
Before this PR, we would emit diagnostics like "Invalid key access" for
a TypedDict literal with invalid key, which doesn't make sense since
there's no "access" in that case. This PR just adjusts the wording to be
more general, and adjusts the documentation of the lint rule too.
I noticed this in the playground and thought it would be a quick fix. As
usual, it turned out to be a bit more subtle than I expected, but for
now I chose to punt on the complexity. We may ultimately want to have
different rules for invalid subscript vs invalid TypedDict literal,
because an invalid key in a TypedDict literal is low severity: it's a
typo detector, but not actually a type error. But then there's another
wrinkle there: if the TypedDict is `closed=True`, then it _is_ a type
error. So would we want to separate the open and closed cases into
separate rules, too? I decided to leave this as a question for future.
If we wanted to use separate rules, or use specific wording for each
case instead of the generalized wording I chose here, that would also
involve a bit of extra work to distinguish the cases, since we use a
generic set of functions for reporting these errors.
## Test Plan
Added and updated mdtests.
This is a second take at the implicit imports approach, allowing `from .
import submodule` in an `__init__.pyi` to create the
`mypackage.submodule` attribute everyhere.
This implementation operates inside of the
available_submodule_attributes subsystem instead of as a re-export rule.
The upside of this is we are no longer purely syntactic, and absolute
from imports that happen to target submodules work (an intentional
discussed deviation from pyright which demands a relative from import).
Also we don't re-export functions or classes.
The downside(?) of this is star imports no longer see these attributes
(this may be either good or bad. I believe it's not a huge lift to make
it work with star imports but it's some non-trivial reworking).
I've also intentionally made `import mypackage.submodule` not trigger
this rule although it's trivial to change that.
I've tried to cover as many relevant cases as possible for discussion in
the new test file I've added (there are some random overlaps with
existing tests but trying to add them piecemeal felt confusing and
weird, so I just made a dedicated file for this extension to the rules).
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/133
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1427
This PR fixes a regression introduced in alpha.24 where non-dataclass
children of generic dataclasses lost generic type parameter information
during `__init__` synthesis.
The issue occurred because when looking up inherited members in the MRO,
the child class's `inherited_generic_context` was correctly passed down,
but `own_synthesized_member()` (which synthesizes dataclass `__init__`
methods) didn't accept this parameter. It only used
`self.inherited_generic_context(db)`, which returned the parent's
context instead of the child's.
The fix threads the child's generic context through to the synthesis
logic, allowing proper generic type inference for inherited dataclass
constructors.
## Test Plan
- Added regression test for non-dataclass inheriting from generic
dataclass
- Verified the exact repro case from the issue now works
- All 277 mdtest tests passing
- Clippy clean
- Manually verified with Python runtime, mypy, and pyright - all accept
this code pattern
## Verification
Tested against multiple type checkers:
- ✅ Python runtime: Code works correctly
- ✅ mypy: No issues found
- ✅ pyright: 0 errors, 0 warnings
- ✅ ty alpha.23: Worked (before regression)
- ❌ ty alpha.24: Regression
- ✅ ty with this fix: Works correctly
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: David Peter <mail@david-peter.de>
It's possible for a constraint to mention two typevars. For instance, in
the body of
```py
def f[S: int, T: S](): ...
```
the baseline constraint set would be `(T ≤ S) ∧ (S ≤ int)`. That is, `S`
must specialize to some subtype of `int`, and `T` must specialize to a
subtype of the type that `S` specializes to.
This PR updates the new "constraint implication" relationship from
#21010 to work on these kinds of constraint sets. For instance, in the
example above, we should be able to see that `T ≤ int` must always hold:
```py
def f[S, T]():
constraints = ConstraintSet.range(Never, S, int) & ConstraintSet.range(Never, T, S)
static_assert(constraints.implies_subtype_of(T, int)) # now succeeds!
```
This did not require major changes to the implementation of
`implies_subtype_of`. That method already relies on how our `simplify`
and `domain` methods expand a constraint set to include the transitive
closure of the constraints that it mentions, and to mark certain
combinations of constraints as impossible. Previously, that transitive
closure logic only looked at pairs of constraints that constrain the
same typevar. (For instance, to notice that `(T ≤ bool) ∧ ¬(T ≤ int)` is
impossible.)
Now we also look at pairs of constraints that constraint different
typevars, if one of the constraints is bound by the other — that is,
pairs of the form `T ≤ S` and `S ≤ something`, or `S ≤ T` and `something
≤ S`. In those cases, transitivity lets us add a new derived constraint
that `T ≤ something` or `something ≤ T`, respectively. Having done that,
our existing `implies_subtype_of` logic finds and takes into account
that derived constraint.
Summary
--
Fixes#21121 by upgrading `RuntimeEvaluated` annotations like
`dataclasses.KW_ONLY` to `RuntimeRequired`. We already had special
handling for
`TypingOnly` annotations in this context but not `RuntimeEvaluated`.
Combining
that with the `future-annotations` setting, which allowed ignoring the
`RuntimeEvaluated` flag, led to the reported bug where we would try to
move
`KW_ONLY` into a `TYPE_CHECKING` block.
Test Plan
--
A new test based on the issue
## Summary
We weren't correctly modeling it as a `staticmethod` in all cases,
leading us to incorrectly infer that the `cls` argument would be bound
if it was accessed on an instance (rather than the class object).
## Test Plan
Added mdtests that fail on `main`. The primer output also looks good!
## Summary
Fixes#21101 by storing the child visitor's names in the parent visitor.
This makes sure that `visitor.names` on line 1818 isn't empty after we
visit a nested OR pattern.
## Test Plan
New inline test cases derived from the issue,
[playground](https://play.ruff.rs/7b6439ac-ee8f-4593-9a3e-c2aa34a595d0)
## Summary
Adds proper type narrowing and reachability analysis for matching on
non-inferable type variables bound to enums. For example:
```py
from enum import Enum
class Answer(Enum):
NO = 0
YES = 1
def is_yes(self) -> bool: # no error here!
match self:
case Answer.YES:
return True
case Answer.NO:
return False
```
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1404
## Test Plan
Added regression tests
## Summary
We previously didn't understand `range` and wrote these custom
`IntIterable`/`IntIterator` classes for tests. We can now remove them
and make the tests shorter in some places.
## Summary
Infer a type of unannotated `self` parameters in decorated methods /
properties.
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1448
## Test Plan
Existing tests, some new tests.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Fixed the incorrect import example in the "correct exmaple"
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
🤷
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Note that this doesn't change the evaluation results unfortunately.
In particular, prior to this fix, the correct result was ranked above
the redundant result. Our MRR-based evaluation doesn't care about
anything below the rank of the correct answer, and so this change isn't
reflected in our evaluation.
Fixesastral-sh/ty#1445
The status quo grew organically and didn't do well when one wanted to
mix and match different settings to generate a snapshot.
This does a small refactor to use more of a builder to generate
snapshots.
This fixes a bug where the `import module` part of a completion for
unimported candidates would be missing. This makes it especially
confusing because the user can't tell where the symbol is coming from,
and there is no hint that an `import` statement will be inserted.
Previously, we were using [`CompletionItemLabelDetails`] to render the
`import module` part of the suggestion. But this is only supported in
clients that support version 3.17 (or newer) of the LSP specification.
It turns out that this support isn't widespread yet. In particular,
Heliex doesn't seem to support "label details."
To fix this, we take a [cue from rust-analyzer][rust-analyzer-details].
We detect if the client supports "label details," and if so, use it.
Otherwise, we push the `import module` text into the completion label
itself.
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20439#issuecomment-3313689568
[`CompletionItemLabelDetails`]: https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifications/lsp/3.17/specification/#completionItemLabelDetails
[rust-analyzer-details]: 5d905576d4/crates/rust-analyzer/src/lsp/to_proto.rs (L391-L404)
This PR updates the mdtests that test how our generics solver interacts
with our new constraint set implementation. Because the rendering of a
constraint set can get long, this standardizes on putting the `revealed`
assertion on a separate line. We also add a `static_assert` test for
each constraint set to verify that they are all coerced into simple
`bool`s correctly.
This is a pure reformatting (not even a refactoring!) that changes no
behavior. I've pulled it out of #20093 to reduce the amount of effort
that will be required to review that PR.
We have several functions in `ty_extensions` for testing our constraint
set implementation. This PR refactors those functions so that they are
all methods of the `ConstraintSet` class, rather than being standalone
top-level functions. 🎩 to @sharkdp for pointing out that
`KnownBoundMethod` gives us what we need to implement that!
This PR adds the new **_constraint implication_** relationship between
types, aka `is_subtype_of_given`, which tests whether one type is a
subtype of another _assuming that the constraints in a particular
constraint set hold_.
For concrete types, constraint implication is exactly the same as
subtyping. (A concrete type is any fully static type that is not a
typevar. It can _contain_ a typevar, though — `list[T]` is considered
concrete.)
The interesting case is typevars. The other typing relationships (TODO:
will) all "punt" on the question when considering a typevar, by
translating the desired relationship into a constraint set. At some
point, though, we need to resolve a constraint set; at that point, we
can no longer punt on the question. Unlike with concrete types, the
answer will depend on the constraint set that we are considering.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
This PR refactors semantic error tests in each seperate file
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## CC
- @ntBre
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
Summary
--
Fixes#19550
This PR copies our non-watch diagnostic rendering code into
`Printer::write_continuously` in preview mode, allowing it to use
whatever output format is passed in.
I initially marked this as also fixing #19552, but I guess that's not
true currently but will be true once this is stabilized and we can
remove the warning.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests, but I don't think we have any `watch` tests, so some
manual testing as well. The default with just `ruff check --watch` is
still `concise`, adding just `--preview` still gives the `full` output,
and then specifying any other output format works, with JSON as one
example:
<img width="695" height="719" alt="Screenshot 2025-10-27 at 9 21 41 AM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/98957911-d216-4fc4-8b6c-22c56c963b3f"
/>
When formatting clause headers for clauses that are not their own node,
like an `else` clause or `finally` clause, we begin searching for the
keyword at the end of the previous statement. However, if the previous
statement ended in a semicolon this caused a panic because we only
expected trivia between the end of the last statement and the keyword.
This PR adjusts the starting point of our search for the keyword to
begin after the optional semicolon in these cases.
Closes#21065
