## Summary
I only noticed this in the ecosystem report of
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/22213 after merging it. The
change to displaying `Top[]` wrapper around the entire signature instead
of just the parameters had the side effect of not showing it at all when
displaying a top ParamSpec specialization. This PR fixes that.
Marking internal since this is a fixup of a not-released PR.
## Test Plan
Added mdtest that fails without this PR.
## Summary
A couple things I noticed when taking another look at the callable type
materializations.
1) Previously we wrongly ignored the return type when
bottom-materializing a callable with gradual signature, and always
changed it to `Never`.
2) We weren't correctly handling overloads that included a gradual
signature. Rather than separately materializing each overload, we would
just mark the entire callable as "top" or replace the entire callable
with the bottom signature.
Really, "top parameters" is something that belongs on the `Parameters`,
not on the entire `CallableType`. Conveniently, we already have
`ParametersKind` where we can track this, right next to where we already
track `ParametersKind::Gradual`. This saves a bit of memory, fixes the
two bugs above, and simplifies the implementation considerably (net
removal of 100+ LOC, a bunch of places that shouldn't need to care about
topness of a callable no longer need to.)
One user-visible change from this is that I now display the "top
callable" as `(Top[...]) -> object` instead of `Top[(...) -> object]`. I
think this is a (minor) improvement, because it wraps exactly the part
in `Top` that needs to be, rather than misleadingly wrapping the entire
callable type, including the return type (which has already been
separately materialized). I think the prior display would be
particularly confusing if the return type also has its own `Top` in it:
previously we could have e.g. `Top[(...) -> Top[list[Unknown]]]`, which
I think is less clear than the new `(Top[...]) -> Top[list[Unknown]]`.
## Test Plan
Added mdtests that failed before this PR and pass after it.
### Ecosystem
The changed diagnostics are all either the change to `Top` display, or
else known non-deterministic output. The added diagnostics are all true
positives:
The added diagnostic at
aa35ca1965/torchvision/transforms/v2/_utils.py (L149)
is a true positive that wasn't caught by the previous version. `str` is
not assignable to `Callable[[Any], Any]` (strings are not callable), nor
is the top callable (top callable includes callables that do not take a
single required positional argument.)
The added diagnostic at
081535ad9b/starlette/routing.py (L67)
is also a (pedantic) true positive. It's the same case as #1567 -- the
code assumes that it is impossible for a subclass of `Response` to
implement `__await__` (yielding something other than a `Response`).
The pytest added diagnostics are also both similar true positives: they
make the assumption that an object cannot simultaneously be a `Sequence`
and callable, or an `Iterable` and callable.
## Summary
Resolve https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2226
We need to add a special case in `apply_type_mapping` instead of
directly in `promote_literals_impl` because we do not reach this with
non generic non tuple nominal instances. We still ensure we apply the
normal mapping if we do not see `float` or `complex` instances.
## Test Plan
Update existing mdtest and add a new case to `literal_promotion.md`
Summary
--
Noticed while responding to #22201 that the last sentence here just ends
abruptly. It turns out that I missed this change when reviewing #21382.
Test Plan
--
CI
Summary
--
While analyzing our rules, I wanted to know which of them use
configuration options but noticed that some of them were not documented
(or at least not documented in a separate `## Options` section).
I had Claude generate an initial list of candidate rules, but it
contained a lot of false positives that I filtered out, and I ended up
adding all of these sections myself. I'm not claiming that the options
lists are exhaustive (as in the rules may use additional options beyond
what I found), but this will at least help with my goal of determining
whether or not a rule is configurable at all and also hopefully be
helpful in general.
I mostly just tacked on an `## Options` section without any commentary,
but I added a couple lines of explanation when I felt that the meaning
of the options wasn't obvious from the context.
I also noticed a bit of variation in the `flake8-simplify` rules from
doing this. Some of them offer a diagnostic but no fix depending on the
resulting line length of the suggestion, while others offer neither. I'm
not sure we need to do anything different here, but it seemed worth
mentioning.
Test Plan
--
Docs tests to make sure the links are right
## Summary
This PR reworks our ecosystem-analyzer workflow so that it automatically
reruns if a PR with the `ecosystem-analyzer` label has new commits
pushed to it, or is reopened after previously being closed. It's
currently easy to forget that you need to remove and re-add the label to
trigger a fresh workflow run, which can then mean that there are stale
(misleading) results in the PR comment posted by the bot. It also means
that it takes longer for CI to finish than it would otherwise, because
it might be a few minutes after pushing new commits to the PR before you
remember that you also need to remove and re-add the label.
To write this PR, I consulted:
- The GitHub workflow trigger documentation:
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-actions/events-that-trigger-workflows#pull_request
- This Stack Overflow answer:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/59588725/13990016
## Test Plan
I experimented with pushing commits to this PR and closing/reopening it,
and both of these actions triggered fresh runs of the ecosystem-analyzer
worfklow when the label was present on the PR. However, removing the
label again meant that the workflow was no longer triggered by these
actions.
