This applies recursively. So if *any* component of a module name starts
with a `_`, then symbols from that module are excluded from auto-import.
The exception is when it's a module within first party code. Then we
want to include it in auto-import.
## Summary
I have no idea what I'm doing with the fix (all the interesting stuff is
in the second commit).
The basic problem is the compiler emits the diagnostic:
```
x: "foobar"
^^^^^^
```
Which the suppression code-action hands the end of to `Tokens::after`
which then panics because that function panics if handed an offset that
is in the middle of a token.
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1748
## Test Plan
Many tests added (only the e2e test matters).
## Summary
This makes an importing file a required argument to module resolution,
and if the fast-path cached query fails to resolve the module, take the
slow-path uncached (could be cached if we want)
`desperately_resolve_module` which will walk up from the importing file
until it finds a `pyproject.toml` (arbitrary decision, we could try
every ancestor directory), at which point it takes one last desperate
attempt to use that directory as a search-path. We do not continue
walking up once we've found a `pyproject.toml` (arbitrary decision, we
could keep going up).
Running locally, this fixes every broken-for-workspace-reasons import in
pyx's workspace!
* Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1539
* Improves https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/839
## Test Plan
The workspace tests see a huge improvement on most absolute imports.
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1716.
## Test plan
I added a corpus snippet that causes us to panic on `main` (I tested by
running `cargo run -p ty_python_semantic --test=corpus` without the fix
applied).
## Summary
Star-imports can not just affect the state of symbols that they pull in,
they can also affect the state of members that are associated with those
symbols. For example, if `obj.attr` was previously narrowed from `int |
None` to `int`, and a star-import now overwrites `obj`, then the
narrowing on `obj.attr` should be "reset".
This PR keeps track of the state of associated members during star
imports and properly models the flow of their corresponding state
through the control flow structure that we artificially create for
star-imports.
See [this
comment](https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1355#issuecomment-3607125005)
for an explanation why this caused ty to see certain `asyncio` symbols
as not being accessible on Python 3.14.
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1355
## Ecosystem impact
```diff
async-utils (https://github.com/mikeshardmind/async-utils)
- src/async_utils/bg_loop.py:115:31: error[invalid-argument-type] Argument to bound method `set_task_factory` is incorrect: Expected `_TaskFactory | None`, found `def eager_task_factory[_T_co](loop: AbstractEventLoop | None, coro: Coroutine[Any, Any, _T_co@eager_task_factory], *, name: str | None = None, context: Context | None = None) -> Task[_T_co@eager_task_factory]`
- Found 30 diagnostics
+ Found 29 diagnostics
mitmproxy (https://github.com/mitmproxy/mitmproxy)
+ mitmproxy/utils/asyncio_utils.py:96:60: warning[unused-ignore-comment] Unused blanket `type: ignore` directive
- test/conftest.py:37:31: error[invalid-argument-type] Argument to bound method `set_task_factory` is incorrect: Expected `_TaskFactory | None`, found `def eager_task_factory[_T_co](loop: AbstractEventLoop | None, coro: Coroutine[Any, Any, _T_co@eager_task_factory], *, name: str | None = None, context: Context | None = None) -> Task[_T_co@eager_task_factory]`
```
All of these seem to be correct, they give us a different type for
`asyncio` symbols that are now imported from different
`sys.version_info` branches (where we previously failed to recognize
some of these as statically true/false).
```diff
dd-trace-py (https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-py)
- ddtrace/contrib/internal/asyncio/patch.py:39:12: error[invalid-argument-type] Argument to function `unwrap` is incorrect: Expected `WrappedFunction`, found `def create_task[_T](self, coro: Coroutine[Any, Any, _T@create_task] | Generator[Any, None, _T@create_task], *, name: object = None) -> Task[_T@create_task]`
+ ddtrace/contrib/internal/asyncio/patch.py:39:12: error[invalid-argument-type] Argument to function `unwrap` is incorrect: Expected `WrappedFunction`, found `def create_task[_T](self, coro: Generator[Any, None, _T@create_task] | Coroutine[Any, Any, _T@create_task], *, name: object = None) -> Task[_T@create_task]`
```
Similar, but only results in a diagnostic change.
## Test Plan
Added a regression test
This fixes a non-determinism that we were seeing in the constraint set
tests in https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/21715.
In this test, we create the following constraint set, and then try to
create a specialization from it:
```
(T@constrained_by_gradual_list = list[Base])
∨
(Bottom[list[Any]] ≤ T@constrained_by_gradual_list ≤ Top[list[Any]])
```
That is, `T` is either specifically `list[Base]`, or it's any `list`.
Our current heuristics say that, absent other restrictions, we should
specialize `T` to the more specific type (`list[Base]`).
In the correct test output, we end up creating a BDD that looks like
this:
```
(T@constrained_by_gradual_list = list[Base])
┡━₁ always
└─₀ (Bottom[list[Any]] ≤ T@constrained_by_gradual_list ≤ Top[list[Any]])
┡━₁ always
└─₀ never
```
In the incorrect output, the BDD looks like this:
```
(Bottom[list[Any]] ≤ T@constrained_by_gradual_list ≤ Top[list[Any]])
┡━₁ always
└─₀ never
```
The difference is the ordering of the two individual constraints. Both
constraints appear in the first BDD, but the second BDD only contains `T
is any list`. If we were to force the second BDD to contain both
constraints, it would look like this:
```
(Bottom[list[Any]] ≤ T@constrained_by_gradual_list ≤ Top[list[Any]])
┡━₁ always
└─₀ (T@constrained_by_gradual_list = list[Base])
┡━₁ always
└─₀ never
```
This is the standard shape for an OR of two constraints. However! Those
two constraints are not independent of each other! If `T` is
specifically `list[Base]`, then it's definitely also "any `list`". From
that, we can infer the contrapositive: that if `T` is not any list, then
it cannot be `list[Base]` specifically. When we encounter impossible
situations like that, we prune that path in the BDD, and treat it as
`false`. That rewrites the second BDD to the following:
```
(Bottom[list[Any]] ≤ T@constrained_by_gradual_list ≤ Top[list[Any]])
┡━₁ always
└─₀ (T@constrained_by_gradual_list = list[Base])
┡━₁ never <-- IMPOSSIBLE, rewritten to never
└─₀ never
```
We then would see that that BDD node is redundant, since both of its
outgoing edges point at the `never` node. Our BDDs are _reduced_, which
means we have to remove that redundant node, resulting in the BDD we saw
above:
```
(Bottom[list[Any]] ≤ T@constrained_by_gradual_list ≤ Top[list[Any]])
┡━₁ always
└─₀ never <-- redundant node removed
```
The end result is that we were "forgetting" about the `T = list[Base]`
constraint, but only for some BDD variable orderings.
To fix this, I'm leaning in to the fact that our BDDs really do need to
"remember" all of the constraints that they were created with. Some
combinations might not be possible, but we now have the sequent map,
which is quite good at detecting and pruning those.
So now our BDDs are _quasi-reduced_, which just means that redundant
nodes are allowed. (At first I was worried that allowing redundant nodes
would be an unsound "fix the glitch". But it turns out they're real!
[This](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/130209) is the
paper that introduces them, though it's very difficult to read. Knuth
mentions them in §7.1.4 of
[TAOCP](https://course.khoury.northeastern.edu/csu690/ssl/bdd-knuth.pdf),
and [this paper](https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10128966) has a nice
short summary of them in §2.)
While we're here, I've added a bunch of `debug` and `trace` level log
messages to the constraint set implementation. I was getting tired of
having to add these by hands over and over. To enable them, just set
`TY_LOG` in your environment, e.g.
```sh
env TY_LOG=ty_python_semantic::types::constraints::SequentMap=trace ty check ...
```
[Note, this has an `internal` label because are still not using
`specialize_constrained` in anything user-facing yet.]
## Summary
For a type alias like the one below, where `UnknownClass` is something
with a dynamic type, we previously lost track of the fact that this
dynamic type was explicitly specialized *with a type variable*. If that
alias is then later explicitly specialized itself (`MyAlias[int]`), we
would miscount the number of legacy type variables and emit a
`invalid-type-arguments` diagnostic
([playground](https://play.ty.dev/886ae6cc-86c3-4304-a365-510d29211f85)).
```py
T = TypeVar("T")
MyAlias: TypeAlias = UnknownClass[T] | None
```
The solution implemented here is not pretty, but we can hopefully get
rid of it via https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1711. Also, once we
properly support `ParamSpec` and `Concatenate`, we should be able to
remove some of this code.
This addresses many of the `invalid-type-arguments` false-positives in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1685. With this change, there are
still some diagnostics of this type left. Instead of implementing even
more (rather sophisticated) workarounds for these cases as well, it
might be much easier to wait for full `ParamSpec`/`Concatenate` support
and then try again.
A disadvantage of this implementation is that we lose track of some
`@Todo` types and replace them with `Unknown`. We could spend more
effort and try to preserve them, but I'm unsure if this is the best use
of our time right now.
## Test Plan
New Markdown tests.
## Summary
Implement default-specialization of generic type aliases (implicit or
PEP-613) if they are used in a type expression without an explicit
specialization.
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1690
## Typing conformance
```diff
-generics_defaults_specialization.py:26:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `SomethingWithNoDefaults[int, str]` does not match asserted type `SomethingWithNoDefaults[int, DefaultStrT]`
```
That's exactly what we want ✔️
All other tests in this file pass as well, with the exception of this
assertion, which is just wrong (at least according to our
interpretation, `type[Bar] != <class 'Bar'>`). I checked that we do
correctly default-specialize the type parameter which is not displayed
in the diagnostic that we raise.
```py
class Bar(SubclassMe[int, DefaultStrT]): ...
assert_type(Bar, type[Bar[str]]) # ty: Type `type[Bar[str]]` does not match asserted type `<class 'Bar'>`
```
## Ecosystem impact
Looks like I should have included this last week 😎
## Test Plan
Updated pre-existing tests and add a few new ones.
## Summary
Fixes#21750 and a related bug in `PLE1142`. We were not properly
considering generators to be valid `await` contexts, which caused the
`F704` issue. One of the tests I added for this also uncovered an issue
in `PLE1142` for comprehensions nested within async generators because
we were only checking the current scope rather than traversing the
nested context.
## Test Plan
Both of these rules are implemented as semantic syntax errors, so I
added tests (and fixes) in both Ruff and ty.
In the following example, there are two occurrences of `typing.Self`,
one for `Foo.foo` and one for `Bar.bar`:
```py
from typing import Self, reveal_type
class Foo[T]:
def foo(self: Self) -> T:
raise NotImplementedError
class Bar:
def bar(self: Self, x: Foo[Self]):
# SHOULD BE: bound method Foo[Self@bar].foo() -> Self@bar
# revealed: bound method Foo[Self@bar].foo() -> Foo[Self@bar]
reveal_type(x.foo)
def f[U: Bar](x: Foo[U]):
# revealed: bound method Foo[U@f].foo() -> U@f
reveal_type(x.foo)
```
When accessing a bound method, we replace any occurrences of `Self` with
the bound `self` type.
We were doing this correctly for the second reveal. We would first apply
the specialization, getting `(self: Self@foo) -> U@F` as the signature
of `x.foo`. We would then bind the `self` parameter, substituting
`Self@foo` with `Foo[U@F]` as part of that. The return type was already
specialized to `U@F`, so that substitution had no further affect on the
type that we revealed.
In the first reveal, we would follow the same process, but we confused
the two occurrences of `Self`. We would first apply the specialization,
getting `(self: Self@foo) -> Self@bar` as the method signature. We would
then try to bind the `self` parameter, substituting `Self@foo` with
`Foo[Self@bar]`. However, because we didn't distinguish the two separate
`Self`s, and applied the substitution to the return type as well as to
the `self` parameter.
The fix is to track which particular `Self` we're trying to substitute
when applying the type mapping.
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1713
Here are a bunch of (variously failing and passing) mdtests that reflect
the kinds of issues people encounter when running ty over an entire
workspace without sufficient hand-holding (especially because in the IDE
it is unclear *how* to provide that hand-holding).
The `Display` implementation for constraint sets is brittle, and
deserves a rethink. But later! It's perfectly fine for printf debugging;
we just shouldn't be writing mdtests that depend on any particular
rendering details. Most of these tests can be replaced with an
equivalence check that actually validates that the _behavior_ of two
constraint sets are identical.
This works by adding a third module resolution mode that lets the caller
opt into _some_ shadowing of modules that is otherwise not allowed (for
`typing` and `typing_extensions`).
Fixesastral-sh/ty#1658
## Summary
If you manage to create an `typing.GenericAlias` instance without us
knowing how that was created, then we don't know what to do with this in
a type annotation. So it's better to be explicit and show an error
instead of failing silently with a `@Todo` type.
## Test Plan
* New Markdown tests
* Zero ecosystem impact
## Summary
We had tests for this already, but they used generic classes that were
bivariant in their type parameter, and so this case wasn't captured.
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1702
## Test Plan
Updated Markdown tests
## Summary
These projects from `mypy_primer` were missing from both `good.txt` and
`bad.txt` for some reason. I thought about writing a script that would
verify that `good.txt` + `bad.txt` = `mypy_primer.projects`, but that's
not completely trivial since there are projects like `cpython` only
appear once in `good.txt`. Given that we can hopefully soon get rid of
both of these files (and always run on all projects), it's probably not
worth the effort. We are usually notified of all `mypy_primer` changes.
## Test Plan
CI on this PR
## Summary
The exact behavior around what's allowed vs. disallowed was partly
detected through trial and error in the runtime.
I was a little confused by [this
comment](https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/129352) that says
"`NamedTuple` subclasses cannot be inherited from" because in practice
that doesn't appear to error at runtime.
Closes [#1683](https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1683).
## Summary
This is another small refactor for
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/21445 that splits the single
`paramspec.md` into `generics/legacy/paramspec.md` and
`generics/pep695/paramspec.md`.
## Test Plan
Make sure that all mdtests pass.
## Summary
Add support for generic PEP 613 type aliases and generic implicit type
aliases:
```py
from typing import TypeVar
T = TypeVar("T")
ListOrSet = list[T] | set[T]
def _(xs: ListOrSet[int]):
reveal_type(xs) # list[int] | set[int]
```
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1643
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1629
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1596
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/573
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/221
## Typing conformance
```diff
-aliases_explicit.py:52:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `list[int]` does not match asserted type `@Todo(specialized generic alias in type expression)`
-aliases_explicit.py:53:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `tuple[str, ...] | list[str]` does not match asserted type `@Todo(Generic specialization of types.UnionType)`
-aliases_explicit.py:54:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `tuple[int, int, int, str]` does not match asserted type `@Todo(specialized generic alias in type expression)`
-aliases_explicit.py:56:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `(int, str, /) -> str` does not match asserted type `@Todo(Generic specialization of typing.Callable)`
-aliases_explicit.py:59:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `int | str | None | list[list[int]]` does not match asserted type `int | str | None | list[@Todo(specialized generic alias in type expression)]`
```
New true negatives ✔️
```diff
+aliases_explicit.py:41:36: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 1, got 2
-aliases_explicit.py:57:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `(int, str, str, /) -> None` does not match asserted type `@Todo(Generic specialization of typing.Callable)`
+aliases_explicit.py:57:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `(int, str, str, /) -> None` does not match asserted type `(...) -> Unknown`
```
These require `ParamSpec`
```diff
+aliases_explicit.py:67:24: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 0, got 1
+aliases_explicit.py:68:24: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 0, got 1
+aliases_explicit.py:69:29: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 1, got 2
+aliases_explicit.py:70:29: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 1, got 2
+aliases_explicit.py:71:29: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 1, got 2
+aliases_explicit.py:102:20: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 0, got 1
```
New true positives ✔️
```diff
-aliases_implicit.py:63:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `list[int]` does not match asserted type `@Todo(specialized generic alias in type expression)`
-aliases_implicit.py:64:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `tuple[str, ...] | list[str]` does not match asserted type `@Todo(Generic specialization of types.UnionType)`
-aliases_implicit.py:65:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `tuple[int, int, int, str]` does not match asserted type `@Todo(specialized generic alias in type expression)`
-aliases_implicit.py:67:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `(int, str, /) -> str` does not match asserted type `@Todo(Generic specialization of typing.Callable)`
-aliases_implicit.py:70:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `int | str | None | list[list[int]]` does not match asserted type `int | str | None | list[@Todo(specialized generic alias in type expression)]`
-aliases_implicit.py:71:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `list[bool]` does not match asserted type `@Todo(specialized generic alias in type expression)`
```
New true negatives ✔️
```diff
+aliases_implicit.py:54:36: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 1, got 2
-aliases_implicit.py:68:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `(int, str, str, /) -> None` does not match asserted type `@Todo(Generic specialization of typing.Callable)`
+aliases_implicit.py:68:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `(int, str, str, /) -> None` does not match asserted type `(...) -> Unknown`
```
These require `ParamSpec`
```diff
+aliases_implicit.py:76:24: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 0, got 1
+aliases_implicit.py:77:24: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 0, got 1
+aliases_implicit.py:78:29: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 1, got 2
+aliases_implicit.py:79:29: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 1, got 2
+aliases_implicit.py:80:29: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 1, got 2
+aliases_implicit.py:81:25: error[invalid-type-arguments] Type `str` is not assignable to upper bound `int | float` of type variable `TFloat@GoodTypeAlias12`
+aliases_implicit.py:135:20: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 0, got 1
```
New true positives ✔️
```diff
+callables_annotation.py:172:19: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 0, got 1
+callables_annotation.py:175:19: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 0, got 1
+callables_annotation.py:188:25: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 0, got 1
+callables_annotation.py:189:25: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected 0, got 1
```
These require `ParamSpec` and `Concatenate`.
```diff
-generics_defaults_specialization.py:26:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `SomethingWithNoDefaults[int, str]` does not match asserted type `SomethingWithNoDefaults[int, typing.TypeVar]`
+generics_defaults_specialization.py:26:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `SomethingWithNoDefaults[int, str]` does not match asserted type `SomethingWithNoDefaults[int, DefaultStrT]`
```
Favorable diagnostic change ✔️
```diff
-generics_defaults_specialization.py:27:5: error[type-assertion-failure] Type `SomethingWithNoDefaults[int, bool]` does not match asserted type `@Todo(specialized generic alias in type expression)`
```
New true negative ✔️
```diff
-generics_defaults_specialization.py:30:1: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'SomethingWithNoDefaults[int, typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
+generics_defaults_specialization.py:30:15: error[invalid-type-arguments] Too many type arguments: expected between 0 and 1, got 2
```
Correct new diagnostic ✔️
```diff
-generics_variance.py:175:25: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Contra[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:175:35: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Co[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:179:29: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Contra[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:179:39: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Contra[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:183:21: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Co[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:183:27: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Co[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:187:25: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Co[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:187:31: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Contra[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:191:33: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Contra[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:191:43: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Co[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:191:49: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Contra[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:196:5: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Contra[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:196:15: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Contra[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
-generics_variance.py:196:25: error[non-subscriptable] Cannot subscript object of type `<class 'Contra[typing.TypeVar]'>` with no `__class_getitem__` method
```
One of these should apparently be an error, but not of this kind, so
this is good ✔️
```diff
-specialtypes_type.py:152:16: error[invalid-type-form] `typing.TypeVar` is not a generic class
-specialtypes_type.py:156:16: error[invalid-type-form] `typing.TypeVar` is not a generic class
```
Good, those were false positives. ✔️
I skipped the analysis for everything involving `TypeVarTuple`.
## Ecosystem impact
**[Full report with detailed
diff](https://david-generic-implicit-alias.ecosystem-663.pages.dev/diff)**
Previous iterations of this PR showed all kinds of problems. In it's
current state, I do not see any large systematic problems, but it is
hard to tell with 5k diagnostic changes.
## Performance
* There is a huge 4x regression in `colour-science/colour`, related to
[this large
file](https://github.com/colour-science/colour/blob/develop/colour/io/luts/tests/test_lut.py)
with [many assignments of hard-coded arrays (lists of lists) to
`np.NDArray`
types](83e754c8b6/colour/io/luts/tests/test_lut.py (L701-L781))
that we now understand. We now take ~2 seconds to check this file, so
definitely not great, but maybe acceptable for now.
## Test Plan
Updated and new Markdown tests
## Summary
This is a bugfix for subtyping of `type[Any]` / `type[T]` and protocols.
## Test Plan
Regression test that will only be really meaningful once
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/21553 lands.
Andrew Gallant
Aria Desires
Micha Reiser
Alex Waygood
David Peter
github-actions[bot]
Douglas Creager
Denys Zhak
Ibraheem Ahmed
Brent Westbrook
Charlie Marsh
Carl Meyer
Shunsuke Shibayama
RasmusNygren
Dhruv Manilawala
Matthew Mckee