Skip to content

Fix UnpackIterator constructor #5815

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 22, 2025
Merged

Fix UnpackIterator constructor #5815

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 22, 2025

Conversation

youknowone
Copy link
Member

@youknowone youknowone commented Jun 22, 2025 •
edited by coderabbitai bot
Loading

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved error handling when attempting to directly instantiate the iterator returned by struct.Struct(...).iter_unpack(...), ensuring a TypeError is raised as expected.

  • Tests

    • Updated test to reflect the improved behavior for uninstantiable iterator types.

@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jun 22, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Walkthrough

The changes update the Rust implementation of the UnpackIterator class to explicitly implement the Unconstructible trait, preventing direct instantiation from Python. Correspondingly, the Python test removes the expected failure marker from the test that asserts this behavior, as the functionality is now properly enforced.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
Lib/test/test_struct.py Removed @unittest.expectedFailure and related comment from test_uninstantiable in UnpackIteratorTest.
stdlib/src/pystruct.rs Added Unconstructible trait to UnpackIterator; renamed constructor from new to with_buffer; updated trait implementations and constructor calls.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Python
    participant RustVM
    participant UnpackIterator

    Python->>RustVM: struct.Struct(...).iter_unpack(...)
    RustVM->>UnpackIterator: UnpackIterator::with_buffer(...)
    UnpackIterator-->>RustVM: returns iterator

    Python->>RustVM: UnpackIterator()  (direct instantiation)
    RustVM-->>Python: Raises TypeError (Unconstructible)
Loading

Poem

A bunny hopped through struct and code,
Unconstructible now, the right road!
No more sneaky hands can make,
Iterators for their own sake.
With tests that pass and traits anew,
The code is strong, the tests are too!
🐇✨

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 44d3124 and ad3b836.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • Lib/test/test_struct.py (0 hunks)
  • stdlib/src/pystruct.rs (5 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • Lib/test/test_struct.py
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (9)
  • GitHub Check: Run snippets and cpython tests (macos-latest)
  • GitHub Check: Check Rust code with rustfmt and clippy
  • GitHub Check: Run rust tests (ubuntu-latest)
  • GitHub Check: Run rust tests (windows-latest)
  • GitHub Check: Run snippets and cpython tests (ubuntu-latest)
  • GitHub Check: Check the WASM package and demo
  • GitHub Check: Run rust tests (macos-latest)
  • GitHub Check: Ensure compilation on various targets
  • GitHub Check: Run tests under miri
🔇 Additional comments (5)
stdlib/src/pystruct.rs (5)

19-19: LGTM: Import addition is correct.

The Unconstructible trait is properly imported and will be used to prevent direct Python instantiation of UnpackIterator.

166-166: LGTM: Method rename improves clarity.

Renaming from new to with_buffer makes the method purpose more explicit and avoids potential conflicts with standard constructor patterns. The method signature and logic remain unchanged.

194-194: LGTM: pyclass attribute correctly updated.

Adding Unconstructible to the #[pyclass] attribute properly configures the class to prevent direct instantiation from Python code.

202-202: LGTM: Trait implementation is minimal and correct.

The empty implementation of Unconstructible for UnpackIterator is appropriate - the trait serves as a marker to prevent Python-level construction.

226-226: LGTM: Method call updates are consistent.

Both invocations correctly use the renamed with_buffer method instead of new, maintaining consistency throughout the codebase.

Also applies to: 306-306

✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Explain this complex logic.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@youknowone youknowone merged commit c824016 into RustPython:main Jun 22, 2025
12 checks passed
@youknowone youknowone deleted the fix-struct branch June 22, 2025 09:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
1 participant
@youknowone