`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>
**Stacked on top of #19849; diff will include that PR until it is
merged.**
---
<!--
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
As part of #19849, I noticed this fix could be implemented.
## Test Plan
Tests added based on CPython behaviour.
## Summary
This PR adds a new lint, `invalid-await`, for all sorts of reasons why
an object may not be `await`able, as discussed in astral-sh/ty#919.
Precisely, `__await__` is guarded against being missing, possibly
unbound, or improperly defined (expects additional arguments or doesn't
return an iterator).
Of course, diagnostics need to be fine-tuned. If `__await__` cannot be
called with no extra arguments, it indicates an error (or a quirk?) in
the method signature, not at the call site. Without any doubt, such an
object is not `Awaitable`, but I feel like talking about arguments for
an *implicit* call is a bit leaky.
I didn't reference any actual diagnostic messages in the lint
definition, because I want to hear feedback first.
Also, there's no mention of the actual required method signature for
`__await__` anywhere in the docs. The only reference I had is the
`typing` stub. I basically ended up linking `[Awaitable]` to ["must
implement
`__await__`"](https://docs.python.org/3/library/collections.abc.html#collections.abc.Awaitable),
which is insufficient on its own.
## Test Plan
The following code was tested:
```python
import asyncio
import typing
class Awaitable:
def __await__(self) -> typing.Generator[typing.Any, None, int]:
yield None
return 5
class NoDunderMethod:
pass
class InvalidAwaitArgs:
def __await__(self, value: int) -> int:
return value
class InvalidAwaitReturn:
def __await__(self) -> int:
return 5
class InvalidAwaitReturnImplicit:
def __await__(self):
pass
async def main() -> None:
result = await Awaitable() # valid
result = await NoDunderMethod() # `__await__` is missing
result = await InvalidAwaitReturn() # `__await__` returns `int`, which is not a valid iterator
result = await InvalidAwaitArgs() # `__await__` expects additional arguments and cannot be called implicitly
result = await InvalidAwaitReturnImplicit() # `__await__` returns `Unknown`, which is not a valid iterator
asyncio.run(main())
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
## Summary
This PR renames `ty.inlayHints.functionArgumentNames` to
`ty.inlayHints.callArgumentNames` which would contain both function
calls and class initialization calls i.e., it represents a generic call
expression.
## Summary
This PR changes the default of `ty.inlayHints.*` settings to `true`.
I somehow missed this in my initial PR.
This is marked as `internal` because it's not yet released.
## 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.
Jack O'Connor
Matthew Mckee
Alex Waygood
Aria Desires
Micha Reiser
Douglas Creager
Dan Parizher
Frazer McLean
github-actions[bot]
Shunsuke Shibayama
Andrii Turov
Brent Westbrook
justin
ffgan
Dhruv Manilawala
Carl Meyer