-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.8k
gh-109543: Remove unnecessary hasattr check #109544
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.
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions
2
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2023-09-18-07-43-22.gh-issue-109543.1tOGoV.rst
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | ||
Remove unnecessary :func:`hasattr` check during :data:`typing.TypedDict` | ||
creation. |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I know you're not changing behaviour here, but are the precise semantics here specified anywhere? Mypy has some interesting behaviour here -- it treats all the keys present in
TD2
as required, but all the keys present inTD1
as not required. That implies to me thatTD2
should not be seen as a "total"TypedDict
.https://mypy-play.net/?mypy=latest&python=3.11&gist=e7ef88dd8c2b5697297c4739d471ac45
The
__total__
attribute seems to be pretty meaningless these days, though, in a post-PEP-655 world:Maybe we should treat that as a bug and make it meaningful. Or maybe we should just be clearer in the documentation that
__total__
doesn't indicate whether or not all keys in theTypedDict
are required or not, it just literally indicates whether that specificTypedDict
was constructed usingtotal=True
(but I'm not sure why that would be useful to anybody).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The mypy behavior is right; that was the way to mix Required and NotRequired keys before PEP 655.
Agree that
__total__
isn't that useful and you should generally look at__required_keys__
and__optional_keys__
. However, I think the current behavior is right. If you do want to use__total__
for introspection, you should look not just at the current class's attribute, but also those of base classes.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's strange to me that we iterate through the base classes as part of the class construction in order to make sure we have accurate
__required_keys__
,__optional_keys__
and__annotations__
attributes on the produced class, but we don't do the same for the__total__
attribute. (We probably shouldn't be doing that for the__annotations__
attribute, since that's not the way__annotations__
works on any other class... but we do it anyway.) It seems very inconsistent to me.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Submitted #109547 with some enhancements to the docs.