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.
## Summary
Other type checkers allow you to access all `FunctionType` attributes on
any object with a `Callable` type. ty does not, because this is
demonstrably unsound, but this is often a source of confusion for users.
And there were lots of diagnostics in the ecosystem report for
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/22145 that were complaining that
"Object of type `(...) -> Unknown` has no attribute `__name__`", for
example.
The discrepancy between what ty does here and what other type checkers
do is discussed a bit in https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1495.
You can see that there have been lots of issues closed as duplicates of
that issue; we should probably also add an FAQ entry for it.
Anyway, this PR adds a subdiagnostic to help users out when they hit
this diagnostic. Unfortunately something I did meant that rustfmt
increased the indentation of the whole of this huge closure, so this PR
is best reviewed with the "No whitespace" option selected for viewing
the diff.
## Test Plan
Snapshot added
Summary
--
This PR fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2186 by replacing
uses of
`Diagnostic::body` with [`Diagnostic::concise_message`][d]. The initial
report
was only about ty's GitHub and GitLab output formats, but I think it
makes sense
to prefer `concise_message` in the other output formats too. Ruff
currently only
sets the primary message on its diagnostics, which is why this has no
effect on
Ruff, and ty currently only supports the GitHub and GitLab formats that
used
`body`, but removing `body` should help to avoid this problem as Ruff
starts to
use more diagnostic features or ty gets new output formats.
Test Plan
--
Updated existing GitLab and GitHub CLI tests to have `reveal_type`
diagnostics
[d]:
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/395bf106ab/crates/ruff_db/src/diagnostic/mod.rs#L185
[t]:
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/395bf106ab/crates/ruff/tests/cli/lint.rs#L3509
## Summary
Provides a message like:
```
error[invalid-argument-type]: Cannot delete required key "name" from TypedDict `Movie`
--> test.py:15:7
|
15 | del m["name"]
| ^^^^^^
|
info: Field defined here
--> test.py:4:5
|
4 | name: str
| --------- `name` declared as required here; consider making it `NotRequired`
|
info: Only keys marked as `NotRequired` (or in a TypedDict with `total=False`) can be deleted
```
## Summary
TypedDict now synthesizes a proper `__delitem__` method that...
- ...allows deletion of `NotRequired` keys and keys in `total=False`
TypedDicts.
- ...rejects deletion of required keys (synthesizes `__delitem__(k:
Never)`).
## Summary
We already had `CallableTypeKind::ClassMethodLike` to track callables
that behave like `classmethods` (always bind the first argument). This
PR adds the symmetric `CallableTypeKind::StaticMethodLike` for callables
that behave like `staticmethods` (never bind `self`).
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2114.
## Summary
Previously, `del x[k]` incorrectly required the object to have a
`__getitem__` method. This was wrong because deletion only needs
`__delitem__`, which is independent of `__getitem__`.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1799.
## Summary
This PR fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1848.
```python
T = tuple[int, 'U']
class C(set['U']):
pass
type U = T | C
```
The reason why the fixed point iteration did not converge was because
the types stored in the implicit tuple type alias `Specialization`
changed each time.
```
1st: <class 'tuple[int, C]'>
2nd: <class 'tuple[int, tuple[int, C] | C]'>
3rd: <class 'tuple[int, tuple[int, tuple[int, C] | C] | C]'>
...
```
And this was because `UnionType::from_elements` was used when creating
union types for tuple operations, which causes type aliases inside to be
expanded.
This PR replaces these with `UnionType::from_elements_leave_aliases`.
## Test Plan
New corpus test
Identify and narrow cases like this:
```py
class Foo(TypedDict):
tag: Literal["foo"]
class Bar(TypedDict):
tag: Literal["bar"]
def _(union: Foo | Bar):
if union["tag"] == "foo":
reveal_type(union) # Foo
```
Fixes part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1479.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2085.
Based on the reported code, the panicking MRE is:
```python
class Test:
def __init__(self, x: int):
self.left = x
self.right = x
def method(self):
self.left, self.right = self.right, self.left
if self.right:
self.right = self.right
```
The type inference (`implicit_attribute_inner`) for `self.right`
proceeds as follows:
```
0: Divergent(Id(6c07))
1: Unknown | int | (Divergent(Id(1c00)) & ~AlwaysFalsy)
2: Unknown | int | (Divergent(Id(6c07)) & ~AlwaysFalsy) | (Divergent(Id(1c00)) & ~AlwaysFalsy)
3: Unknown | int | (Divergent(Id(1c00)) & ~AlwaysFalsy) | (Divergent(Id(6c07)) & ~AlwaysFalsy)
4: Unknown | int | (Divergent(Id(6c07)) & ~AlwaysFalsy) | (Divergent(Id(1c00)) & ~AlwaysFalsy)
...
```
The problem is that the order of union types is not stable between
cycles. To solve this, when unioning the previous union type with the
current union type, we should use the previous type as the base and add
only the new elements in this cycle (In the current implementation, this
unioning order was reversed).
## Test Plan
New corpus test
## Summary
IIUC, tuples with a known structure (`tuple_spec`) use the standard
tuple `__eq__` which only returns `True` for other tuples, so they can
be safely excluded when disjoint from string literals or other non-tuple
types.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2140.
## Summary
This appears to have been a copy/paste error from the list example, as
the subscript is not present in the original next/iter example only in
the case where the error case is shown. While in the specific example
code the subscript actually has no effect, it does make the example
slightly confusing.
Consider the following variations, first the example from the docs
unchanged and second the same code but not hitting the intended error
case (due to using a non-empty collection):
```console
$ python3 -c 'next(iter(range(0)))[0]'
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
StopIteration
$ python3 -c 'next(iter(range(1)))[0]'
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: 'int' object is not subscriptable
```
## Test Plan
Not directly tested, however see inline snippets above.
