This is a first stab at solving
https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/500, at least in part, with the
old solver. We add a new `TypeRelation` that lets us opt into using
constraint sets to describe when a typevar is assignability to some
type, and then use that to calculate a constraint set that describes
when two callable types are assignable. If the callable types contain
typevars, that constraint set will describe their valid specializations.
We can then walk through all of the ways the constraint set can be
satisfied, and record a type mapping in the old solver for each one.
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <alex.waygood@gmail.com>
As described in astral-sh/ty#1729, we previously had a salsa cycle when
inferring the signature of many function definitions.
The most obvious case happened when (a) the function was decorated, (b)
it had no PEP-695 type params, and (c) annotations were not always
deferred (e.g. in a stub file). We currently evaluate and apply function
decorators eagerly, as part of `infer_function_definition`. Applying a
decorator requires knowing the signature of the function being
decorated. There were two places where signature construction called
`infer_definition_types` cyclically.
The simpler case was that we were looking up the generic context and
decorator list of the function to determine whether it has an implicit
`self` parameter. Before, we used `infer_definition_types` to determine
that information. But since we're in the middle of signature
construction for the function, we can just thread the information
through directly.
The harder case is that signature construction requires knowing the
inferred parameter and return type annotations. When (b) and (c) hold,
those type annotations are inferred in `infer_function_definition`! (In
theory, we've already finished that by the time we start applying
decorators, but signature construction doesn't know that.)
If annotations are deferred, the params/return annotations are inferred
in `infer_deferred_types`; if there are PEP-695 type params, they're
inferred in `infer_function_type_params`. Both of those are different
salsa queries, and don't induce this cycle.
So the quick fix here is to always defer inference of the function
params/return, so that they are always inferred under a different salsa
query.
A more principled fix would be to apply decorators lazily, just like we
construct signatures lazily. But that is a more invasive fix.
Fixesastral-sh/ty#1729
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <alex.waygood@gmail.com>
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
This patch lets us create specializations from a constraint set. The
constraint encodes the restrictions on which types each typevar can
specialize to. Given a generic context and a constraint set, we iterate
through all of the generic context's typevars. For each typevar, we
abstract the constraint set so that it only mentions the typevar in
question (propagating derived facts if needed). We then find the "best
representative type" for the typevar given the abstracted constraint
set.
When considering the BDD structure of the abstracted constraint set,
each path from the BDD root to the `true` terminal represents one way
that the constraint set can be satisfied. (This is also one of the
clauses in the DNF representation of the constraint set's boolean
formula.) Each of those paths is the conjunction of the individual
constraints of each internal node that we traverse as we walk that path,
giving a single lower/upper bound for the path. We use the upper bound
as the "best" (i.e. "closest to `object`") type for that path.
If there are multiple paths in the BDD, they technically represent
independent possible specializations. If there's a single specialization
that satisfies all of them, we will return that as the specialization.
If not, then the constraint set is ambiguous. (This happens most often
with constrained typevars.) We could in the future turn _each_ of the
paths into separate specializations, but it's not clear what we would do
with that, so instead we just report the ambiguity as a specialization
failure.
## Summary
Detect usages of implicit `self` in property getters, which allows us to
treat their signature as being generic.
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1502
## Typing conformance
Two new type assertions that are succeeding.
## Ecosystem results
Mostly look good. There are a few new false positives related to a bug
with constrained typevars that is unrelated to the work here. I reported
this as https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1503.
## Test Plan
Added regression tests.
## 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.
## 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>
## Summary
Typevar attributes (bound/constraints/default) can be either lazily
evaluated or eagerly evaluated. Currently they are lazily evaluated for
PEP 695 typevars, and eager for legacy and synthetic typevars.
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20598 will make them lazy also
for legacy typevars, and the ecosystem report on that PR surfaced the
issue fixed here (because legacy typevars are much more common in the
ecosystem than PEP 695 typevars.)
Applying a transform to a typevar (normalization, materialization, or
mark-inferable) will reify all lazy attributes and create a new typevar
with eager attributes. In terms of Salsa identity, this transformed
typevar will be considered different from the original typevar, whether
or not the attributes were actually transformed.
In general, this is not a problem, since all typevars in a given generic
context will be transformed, or not, together.
The exception to this was implicit-self vs explicit Self annotations.
The typevar we created for implicit self was created initially using
inferable typevars, whereas an explicit Self annotation is initially
non-inferable, then transformed via mark-inferable when accessed as part
of a function signature. If the containing class (which becomes the
upper bound of `Self`) is generic, and has e.g. a lazily-evaluated
default, then the explicit-Self annotation will reify that default in
the upper bound, and the implicit-self would not, leading them to be
treated as different typevars, and causing us to fail to solve a call to
a method such as `def method(self) -> Self` correctly.
The fix here is to treat implicit-self more like explicit-Self,
initially creating it as non-inferable and then using the mark-inferable
transform on it. This is less efficient, but restores the invariant that
all typevars in a given generic context are transformed together, or
not, fixing the bug.
In the improved-constraint-solver work, the separation of typevars into
"inferable" and "non-inferable" is expected to disappear, along with the
mark-inferable transform, which would render both this bug and the fix
moot. So this fix is really just temporary until that lands.
There is a performance regression, but not a huge one: 1-2% on most
projects, 5% on one outlier. This seems acceptable, given that it should
be fully recovered by removing the mark-inferable transform.
## Test Plan
Added mdtests that failed before this change.
## Summary
Modify the (external) signature of instance methods such that the first
parameter uses `Self` unless it is explicitly annotated. This allows us
to correctly type-check more code, and allows us to infer correct return
types for many functions that return `Self`. For example:
```py
from pathlib import Path
from datetime import datetime, timedelta
reveal_type(Path(".config") / ".ty") # now Path, previously Unknown
def _(dt: datetime, delta: timedelta):
reveal_type(dt - delta) # now datetime, previously Unknown
```
part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/159
## Performance
I ran benchmarks locally on `attrs`, `freqtrade` and `colour`, the
projects with the largest regressions on CodSpeed. I see much smaller
effects locally, but can definitely reproduce the regression on `attrs`.
From looking at the profiling results (on Codspeed), it seems that we
simply do more type inference work, which seems plausible, given that we
now understand much more return types (of many stdlib functions). In
particular, whenever a function uses an implicit `self` and returns
`Self` (without mentioning `Self` anywhere else in its signature), we
will now infer the correct type, whereas we would previously return
`Unknown`. This also means that we need to invoke the generics solver in
more cases. Comparing half a million lines of log output on attrs, I can
see that we do 5% more "work" (number of lines in the log), and have a
lot more `apply_specialization` events (7108 vs 4304). On freqtrade, I
see similar numbers for `apply_specialization` (11360 vs 5138 calls).
Given these results, I'm not sure if it's generally worth doing more
performance work, especially since none of the code modifications
themselves seem to be likely candidates for regressions.
| Command | Mean [ms] | Min [ms] | Max [ms] | Relative |
|:---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| `./ty_main check /home/shark/ecosystem/attrs` | 92.6 ± 3.6 | 85.9 |
102.6 | 1.00 |
| `./ty_self check /home/shark/ecosystem/attrs` | 101.7 ± 3.5 | 96.9 |
113.8 | 1.10 ± 0.06 |
| Command | Mean [ms] | Min [ms] | Max [ms] | Relative |
|:---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| `./ty_main check /home/shark/ecosystem/freqtrade` | 599.0 ± 20.2 |
568.2 | 627.5 | 1.00 |
| `./ty_self check /home/shark/ecosystem/freqtrade` | 607.9 ± 11.5 |
594.9 | 626.4 | 1.01 ± 0.04 |
| Command | Mean [ms] | Min [ms] | Max [ms] | Relative |
|:---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| `./ty_main check /home/shark/ecosystem/colour` | 423.9 ± 17.9 | 394.6
| 447.4 | 1.00 |
| `./ty_self check /home/shark/ecosystem/colour` | 426.9 ± 24.9 | 373.8
| 456.6 | 1.01 ± 0.07 |
## Test Plan
New Markdown tests
## Ecosystem report
* apprise: ~300 new diagnostics related to problematic stubs in apprise
😩
* attrs: a new true positive, since [this
function](4e2c89c823/tests/test_make.py (L2135))
is missing a `@staticmethod`?
* Some legitimate true positives
* sympy: lots of new `invalid-operator` false positives in [matrix
multiplication](cf9f4b6805/sympy/matrices/matrixbase.py (L3267-L3269))
due to our limited understanding of [generic `Callable[[Callable[[T1,
T2], T3]], Callable[[T1, T2], T3]]` "identity"
types](cf9f4b6805/sympy/core/decorators.py (L83-L84))
of decorators. This is not related to type-of-self.
## Typing conformance results
The changes are all correct, except for
```diff
+generics_self_usage.py:50:5: error[invalid-assignment] Object of type `def foo(self) -> int` is not assignable to `(typing.Self, /) -> int`
```
which is related to an assignability problem involving type variables on
both sides:
```py
class CallableAttribute:
def foo(self) -> int:
return 0
bar: Callable[[Self], int] = foo # <- we currently error on this assignment
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Shaygan Hooshyari <sh.hooshyari@gmail.com>
Fixes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1173
<!--
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
This PR will change the logic of binding Self type variables to bind
self to the immediate function that it's used on.
Since we are binding `self` to methods and not the class itself we need
to ensure that we bind self consistently.
The fix is to traverse scopes containing the self and find the first
function inside a class and use that function to bind the typevar for
self.
If no such scope is found we fallback to the normal behavior. Using Self
outside of a class scope is not legal anyway.
## Test Plan
Added a new mdtest.
Checked the diagnostics that are not emitted anymore in [primer
results](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20366#issuecomment-3289411424).
It looks good altough I don't completely understand what was wrong
before.
---------
Co-authored-by: Douglas Creager <dcreager@dcreager.net>
`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>
This fixes our logic for binding a legacy typevar with its binding
context. (To recap, a legacy typevar starts out "unbound" when it is
first created, and each time it's used in a generic class or function,
we "bind" it with the corresponding `Definition`.)
We treat `typing.Self` the same as a legacy typevar, and so we apply
this binding logic to it too. Before, we were using the enclosing class
as its binding context. But that's not correct — it's the method where
`typing.Self` is used that binds the typevar. (Each invocation of the
method will find a new specialization of `Self` based on the specific
instance type containing the invoked method.)
This required plumbing through some additional state to the
`in_type_expression` method.
This also revealed that we weren't handling `Self`-typed instance
attributes correctly (but were coincidentally not getting the expected
false positive diagnostics).
This PR introduces a few related changes:
- We now keep track of each time a legacy typevar is bound in a
different generic context (e.g. class, function), and internally create
a new `TypeVarInstance` for each usage. This means the rest of the code
can now assume that salsa-equivalent `TypeVarInstance`s refer to the
same typevar, even taking into account that legacy typevars can be used
more than once.
- We also go ahead and track the binding context of PEP 695 typevars.
That's _much_ easier to track since we have the binding context right
there during type inference.
- With that in place, we can now include the name of the binding context
when rendering typevars (e.g. `T@f` instead of `T`)
We were not inducting into instance types and subclass-of types when
looking for legacy typevars, nor when apply specializations.
This addresses
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17832#discussion_r2081502056
```py
from __future__ import annotations
from typing import TypeVar, Any, reveal_type
S = TypeVar("S")
class Foo[T]:
def method(self, other: Foo[S]) -> Foo[T | S]: ... # type: ignore[invalid-return-type]
def f(x: Foo[Any], y: Foo[Any]):
reveal_type(x.method(y)) # revealed: `Foo[Any | S]`, but should be `Foo[Any]`
```
We were not detecting that `S` made `method` generic, since we were not
finding it when searching the function signature for legacy typevars.
## Summary
Fixes: astral-sh/ty#159
This PR adds support for using `Self` in methods.
When the type of an annotation is `TypingSelf` it is converted to a type
var based on:
https://typing.python.org/en/latest/spec/generics.html#self
I just skipped Protocols because it had more problems and the tests was
not useful.
Also I need to create a follow up PR that implicitly assumes `self`
argument has type `Self`.
In order to infer the type in the `in_type_expression` method I needed
to have scope id and semantic index available. I used the idea from
[this PR](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17589/files) to pass
additional context to this method.
Also I think in all places that `in_type_expression` is called we need
to have this context because `Self` can be there so I didn't split the
method into one version with context and one without.
## Test Plan
Added new tests from spec.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
Douglas Creager
Ibraheem Ahmed
David Peter
Carl Meyer
Shaygan Hooshyari
Alex Waygood