It looks like VS Code does this forcefully. As in, I don't think we can
override it. It also seems like a plausibly good idea. But by us doing
it too, it makes our completion evaluation framework match real world
conditions. (To the extent that "VS Code" and "real world conditions"
are the same. Which... they aren't. But it's close, since VS Code is so
popular.)
This should round out the rest of the set. I think I had hesitated doing
this before because some of these don't make sense in every context. But
I think identifying the correct context for every keyword could be quite
difficult. And at the very least, I think offering these at least as a
choice---even if they aren't always correct---is better than not doing
it at all.
It's everyone's favourite language corner case!
Also having kicked the tires on it, I'm pretty happy to call this (in
conjunction with #21367):
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/494
There's cases where you can make noisy Literal hints appear, so we can
always iterate on it, but this handles like, 98% of the cases in the
wild, which is great.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Peter <sharkdp@users.noreply.github.com>
I'm not 100% sold on this implementation, but it's a strict improvement
and it adds a ton of snapshot tests for future iteration.
Part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/494
<!--
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
Resolves https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1494
## Test Plan
Add a test showing if we are in `from <name> <name> ` we provide the
keyword completion "import"
This elides the following inlay hints:
```py
foo([x=]x)
foo([x=]y.x)
foo([x=]x[0])
foo([x=]x(...))
# composes to complex situations
foo([x=]y.x(..)[0])
```
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1514
## Summary
This PR adds support for understanding the legacy definition and PEP 695
definition for `ParamSpec`.
This is still very initial and doesn't really implement any of the
semantics.
Part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/157
## Test Plan
Add mdtest cases.
## Ecosystem analysis
Most of the diagnostics in `starlette` are due to the fact that ty now
understands `ParamSpec` is not a `Todo` type, so the assignability check
fails. The code looks something like:
```py
class _MiddlewareFactory(Protocol[P]):
def __call__(self, app: ASGIApp, /, *args: P.args, **kwargs: P.kwargs) -> ASGIApp: ... # pragma: no cover
class Middleware:
def __init__(
self,
cls: _MiddlewareFactory[P],
*args: P.args,
**kwargs: P.kwargs,
) -> None:
self.cls = cls
self.args = args
self.kwargs = kwargs
# ty complains that `ServerErrorMiddleware` is not assignable to `_MiddlewareFactory[P]`
Middleware(ServerErrorMiddleware, handler=error_handler, debug=debug)
```
There are multiple diagnostics where there's an attribute access on the
`Wrapped` object of `functools` which Pyright also raises:
```py
from functools import wraps
def my_decorator(f):
@wraps(f)
def wrapper(*args, **kwds):
return f(*args, **kwds)
# Pyright: Cannot access attribute "__signature__" for class "_Wrapped[..., Unknown, ..., Unknown]"
Attribute "__signature__" is unknown [reportAttributeAccessIssue]
# ty: Object of type `_Wrapped[Unknown, Unknown, Unknown, Unknown]` has no attribute `__signature__` [unresolved-attribute]
wrapper.__signature__
return wrapper
```
There are additional diagnostics that is due to the assignability checks
failing because ty now infers the `ParamSpec` instead of using the
`Todo` type which would always succeed. This results in a few
`no-matching-overload` diagnostics because the assignability checks
fail.
There are a few diagnostics related to
https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/491 where there's a variable
which is either a bound method or a variable that's annotated with
`Callable` that doesn't contain the instance as the first parameter.
Another set of (valid) diagnostics are where the code hasn't provided
all the type variables. ty is now raising diagnostics for these because
we include `ParamSpec` type variable in the signature. For example,
`staticmethod[Any]` which contains two type variables.
<!--
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
Raised by @AlexWaygood.
We previously did not favour imported symbols, when we probably
should've
## Test Plan
Add test showing that we favour imported symbol even if it is
alphabetically after other symbols that are builtin.
<!--
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
Resolves https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1464
We sort the completions before we add the unimported ones, meaning that
imported completions show up before unimported ones.
This is also spoken about in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1274, and this is probably a
duplicate of that.
@AlexWaygood mentions this
[here](https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1274#issuecomment-3345942698)
too.
## Test Plan
Add a test showing even if an unimported completion "should"
(alphabetically before) come first, we favor the imported one.
<!--
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
@BurntSushi provided some feedback in #21146 so i address it here.
## 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
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.
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.
## Summary
Infer a type of `Self` for unannotated `self` parameters in methods of
classes.
part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/159
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1081
## Conformance tests changes
```diff
+enums_member_values.py:85:9: error[invalid-assignment] Object of type `int` is not assignable to attribute `_value_` of type `str`
```
A true positive ✔️
```diff
-generics_self_advanced.py:35:9: error[type-assertion-failure] Argument does not have asserted type `Self@method2`
-generics_self_basic.py:14:9: error[type-assertion-failure] Argument does not have asserted type `Self@set_scale
```
Two false positives going away ✔️
```diff
+generics_syntax_infer_variance.py:82:9: error[invalid-assignment] Cannot assign to final attribute `x` on type `Self@__init__`
```
This looks like a true positive to me, even if it's not marked with `#
E` ✔️
```diff
+protocols_explicit.py:56:9: error[invalid-assignment] Object of type `tuple[int, int, str]` is not assignable to attribute `rgb` of type `tuple[int, int, int]`
```
True positive ✔️
```
+protocols_explicit.py:85:9: error[invalid-attribute-access] Cannot assign to ClassVar `cm1` from an instance of type `Self@__init__`
```
This looks like a true positive to me, even if it's not marked with `#
E`. But this is consistent with our understanding of `ClassVar`, I
think. ✔️
```py
+qualifiers_final_annotation.py:52:9: error[invalid-assignment] Cannot assign to final attribute `ID4` on type `Self@__init__`
+qualifiers_final_annotation.py:65:9: error[invalid-assignment] Cannot assign to final attribute `ID7` on type `Self@method1`
```
New true positives ✔️
```py
+qualifiers_final_annotation.py:52:9: error[invalid-assignment] Cannot assign to final attribute `ID4` on type `Self@__init__`
+qualifiers_final_annotation.py:57:13: error[invalid-assignment] Cannot assign to final attribute `ID6` on type `Self@__init__`
+qualifiers_final_annotation.py:59:13: error[invalid-assignment] Cannot assign to final attribute `ID6` on type `Self@__init__`
```
This is a new false positive, but that's a pre-existing issue on main
(if you annotate with `Self`):
https://play.ty.dev/3ee1c56d-7e13-43bb-811a-7a81e236e6ab❌ => reported
as https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1409
## Ecosystem
* There are 5931 new `unresolved-attribute` and 3292 new
`possibly-missing-attribute` attribute errors, way too many to look at
all of them. I randomly sampled 15 of these errors and found:
* 13 instances where there was simply no such attribute that we could
plausibly see. Sometimes [I didn't find it
anywhere](8644d886c6/openlibrary/plugins/openlibrary/tests/test_listapi.py (L33)).
Sometimes it was set externally on the object. Sometimes there was some
[`setattr` dynamicness going
on](a49f6b927d/setuptools/wheel.py (L88-L94)).
I would consider all of them to be true positives.
* 1 instance where [attribute was set on `obj` in
`__new__`](9e87b44fd4/sympy/tensor/array/array_comprehension.py (L45C1-L45C36)),
which we don't support yet
* 1 instance [where the attribute was defined via `__slots__`
](e250ec0fc8/lib/spack/spack/vendor/pyrsistent/_pdeque.py (L48C5-L48C14))
* I see 44 instances [of the false positive
above](https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1409) with `Final`
instance attributes being set in `__init__`. I don't think this should
block this PR.
## Test Plan
New Markdown tests.
---------
Co-authored-by: Shaygan Hooshyari <sh.hooshyari@gmail.com>
This is an alternative to #21012 that more narrowly handles this logic
in the stub-mapping machinery rather than pervasively allowing us to
identify cached files as typeshed stubs. Much of the logic is the same
(pulling the logic out of ty_server so it can be reused).
I don't have a good sense for if one approach is "better" or "worse" in
terms of like, semantics and Weird Bugs that this can cause. This one is
just "less spooky in its broad consequences" and "less muddying of
separation of concerns" and puts the extra logic on a much colder path.
I won't be surprised if one day the previous implementation needs to be
revisited for its more sweeping effects but for now this is good.
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1054
We have to track whether a typevar appears in a position where it's
inferable or not. In a non-inferable position (in the body of the
generic class or function that binds it), assignability must hold for
every possible specialization of the typevar. In an inferable position,
it only needs to hold for _some_ specialization.
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20093 is working on using
constraint sets to model assignability of typevars, and the constraint
sets that we produce will be the same for inferable vs non-inferable
typevars; what changes is what we _compare_ that constraint set to. (For
a non-inferable typevar, the constraint set must equal the set of valid
specializations; for an inferable typevar, it must not be `never`.)
When I first added support for tracking inferable vs non-inferable
typevars, it seemed like it would be easiest to have separate `Type`
variants for each. The alternative (which lines up with the Δ set in
[POPL15](https://doi.org/10.1145/2676726.2676991)) would be to
explicitly plumb through a list of inferable typevars through our type
property methods. That seemed cumbersome.
In retrospect, that was the wrong decision. We've had to jump through
hoops to translate types between the inferable and non-inferable
variants, which has been quite brittle. Combined with the original point
above, that much of the assignability logic will become more identical
between inferable and non-inferable, there is less justification for the
two `Type` variants. And plumbing an extra `inferable` parameter through
all of these methods turns out to not be as bad as I anticipated.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
This allows us to handle self-referential bounds/constraints/defaults
without panicking.
Handles more cases from https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/256
This also changes the way we infer the types of legacy TypeVars. Rather
than understanding a constructor call to `typing[_extension].TypeVar`
inside of any (arbitrarily nested) expression, and having to use a
special `assigned_to` field of the semantic index to try to best-effort
figure out what name the typevar was assigned to, we instead understand
the creation of a legacy `TypeVar` only in the supported syntactic
position (RHS of a simple un-annotated assignment with one target). In
any other position, we just infer it as creating an opaque instance of
`typing.TypeVar`. (This behavior matches all other type checkers.)
So we now special-case TypeVar creation in `TypeInferenceBuilder`, as a
special case of an assignment definition, rather than deeper inside call
binding. This does mean we re-implement slightly more of
argument-parsing, but in practice this is minimal and easy to handle
correctly.
This is easier to implement if we also make the RHS of a simple (no
unpacking) one-target assignment statement no longer a standalone
expression. Which is fine to do, because simple one-target assignments
don't need to infer the RHS more than once. This is a bonus performance
(0-3% across various projects) and significant memory-usage win, since
most assignment statements are simple one-target assignment statements,
meaning we now create many fewer standalone-expression salsa
ingredients.
This change does mean that inference of manually-constructed
`TypeAliasType` instances can no longer find its Definition in
`assigned_to`, which regresses go-to-definition for these aliases. In a
future PR, `TypeAliasType` will receive the same treatment that
`TypeVar` did in this PR (moving its special-case inference into
`TypeInferenceBuilder` and supporting it only in the correct syntactic
position, and lazily inferring its value type to support recursion),
which will also fix the go-to-definition regression. (I decided a
temporary edge-case regression is better in this case than doubling the
size of this PR.)
This PR also tightens up and fixes various aspects of the validation of
`TypeVar` creation, as seen in the tests.
We still (for now) treat all typevars as instances of `typing.TypeVar`,
even if they were created using `typing_extensions.TypeVar`. This means
we'll wrongly error on e.g. `T.__default__` on Python 3.11, even if `T`
is a `typing_extensions.TypeVar` instance at runtime. We share this
wrong behavior with both mypy and pyrefly. It will be easier to fix
after we pull in https://github.com/python/typeshed/pull/14840.
There are some issues that showed up here with typevar identity and
`MarkTypeVarsInferable`; the fix here (using the new `original` field
and `is_identical_to` methods on `BoundTypeVarInstance` and
`TypeVarInstance`) is a bit kludgy, but it can go away when we eliminate
`MarkTypeVarsInferable`.
## Test Plan
Added and updated mdtests.
### Conformance suite impact
The impact here is all positive:
* We now correctly error on a legacy TypeVar with exactly one constraint
type given.
* We now correctly error on a legacy TypeVar with both an upper bound
and constraints specified.
### Ecosystem impact
Basically none; in the setuptools case we just issue slightly different
errors on an invalid TypeVar definition, due to the modified validation
code.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
The `types` module currently re-exports a lot of functions and data
types from `types::ide_support`. One of these is called `Member`, a name
that is overloaded several times already. And I'd like to add one more
`Member` struct soon. Making the whole `ide_support` module public seems
cleaner to me, anyway.
## Test Plan
Pure refactoring.
## Summary
Bump the latest supported Python version of ty to 3.14 and updates some
references from 3.13 to 3.14.
This also fixes a bug with `dataclasses.field` on 3.14 (which adds a new
keyword-only parameter to that function, breaking our previously naive
matching on the parameter structure of that function).
## Test Plan
A `ty check` on a file with template strings (without any further
configuration) doesn't raise errors anymore.
We don't attempt to fix these yet. I think there are bigger fish to fry.
I came up with these based on this discussion:
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20439#discussion_r2357769518
Here's one example:
```
if ...:
from foo import MAGIC
else:
from bar import MAGIC
MAG<CURSOR>
```
Now in this example, completions will include `MAGIC` from the local
scope. That is, auto-import is involved with that completion. But at
present, auto-import will suggest importing `foo` and `bar` because we
haven't de-duplicated completions yet. Which is fine.
Here's another example:
```
if ...:
import foo as fubar
else:
import bar as fubar
MAG<CURSOR>
```
Now here, there is no `MAGIC` symbol in scope. So auto-import is in
play. Let's assume that the user selects `MAGIC` from `foo` in this
example. (`bar` also has `MAGIC`.)
Since we currently ignore the declaration site for symbols with
multiple possible bindings, the importer today doesn't know that
`fubar` _could_ contain `MAGIC`. But even if it did, what would we do
with that information? Should we do this?
```
if ...:
import foo as fubar
from foo import MAGIC
else:
import bar as fubar
MAGIC
```
Or could we reason that `bar` also has `MAGIC`?
```
if ...:
import foo as fubar
else:
import bar as fubar
fubar.MAGIC
```
But if we did that, we're making an assumption of user intent, since
they *selected* `foo.MAGIC` but not `bar.MAGIC`.
Anyway, I don't think we need to settle on an answer today, but I
wanted to capture some of these tricky cases in tests at the very
least.
Aria Desires
Micha Reiser
Andrew Gallant
Jack O'Connor
Matthew Mckee
Dhruv Manilawala
Alex Waygood
David Peter
decorator-factory
Shunsuke Shibayama
Douglas Creager
github-actions[bot]
Carl Meyer
Takayuki Maeda