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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
[
pylint
] Implement PLE0302unexpected-special-method-signature
#4075[
pylint
] Implement PLE0302unexpected-special-method-signature
#4075Changes from 3 commits
bbd90c8
088dfd9
197bfc9
f8fbb4a
801c514
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Rather than modeling each case as
RangeInclusive
, and usingself.expected_params.end() - self.expected_params.start() > 1
-like checks to determine whether a branch should be treated as a range or not, what if we introduced an enum here to represent the two cases? E.g.:(Names etc. are of course flexible, just illustrating the concept.)
I think that would make some of the case-handling below a bit clearer by way of being more explicit.
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.
Done.
I used the new enum in the violation so it has to be public :/. If you have a preference
expected_params
can be rendered into a string for formatting before creating the violation, which would allowExpectedParams
to be private again.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.
All good, we follow this pattern after and the enums end up public. No worries.
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.
(This could even be an associated function on
ExpectedParameters
, to increment the count.)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.
ExpectedParams::from_method()
takes anis_staticmethod
bool and applies this internally on construction, but I got rid of themap()
call.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.
Does this need to take into account positional-only and/or keyword-only arguments? (Elsewhere, we have logic like
let defaults_start = args.posonlyargs.len() + args.args.len() - args.defaults.len();
andlet defaults_start = args.kwonlyargs.len() - args.kw_defaults.len();
to infer some similar information from function signatures.)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 patterned off of the pylint check which did not take posonly/kwonly args into account, but I can investigate further if you'd like. I don't think we need to consider kw-only arguments as it doesn't seem that any special methods have them according to the documentation.
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.
Perhaps we want to extend the check with a custom message when posonly/kwonly args are included, since that itself deviates from the expected signature, albeit in a different way?
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.