-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
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
Stubtest failed on Tue Feb 22 2022 #7344
Comments
Quite a few:
|
Maybe we should consider reverting stubtest to allowing positional-only inconsistencies on dunders? While I don't mind the extra stdlib fixes we've made as a result, this feels more like busy work than usual / seems unlikely to really help users. cc @AlexWaygood |
Even more than in your message, @hauntsaninja -- you missed the
|
I'd rather not see the stdlib regress tbh, but I also don't really feel like I have the energy to sweep through all the third-party stubs. Could we add a command-line option to switch it off, and use that option for the third-party stubs? |
I think it also causes some problems on stdlib stubs, that we haven't seen yet because they come once we add python/mypy#12203 We'll get there one day :-) The fixes you've made are great and I'd be surprised if the dunder positional-only args already fixed regressed too much. (Also you may have picked up on this, but in general I'm hesitant to add configuration options to things) |
Fixes python#7344 for now. As discussed in that issue, I think it might make sense to revert the change to check positional-only arguments on dunders for now, since it seems to be mostly busywork and has very little benefit for end users. However, that'll happen on stubtest master, which typeshed isn't yet ready for.
Fixes #7344 for now. As discussed in that issue, I think it might make sense to revert the change to check positional-only arguments on dunders for now, since it seems to be mostly busywork and has very little benefit for end users. However, that'll happen on stubtest master, which typeshed isn't yet ready for. Co-authored-by: hauntsaninja <>
My hope is that I've already fixed most of those 🙂
Yeah, I get that |
^FWIW, I actually feel worse about the async-mismatch test I introduced. All (I think) of the Then again, maybe we can reduce false positives by only raising an error if a runtime async function is sync in the stub, and ignore the vice versa. The |
Hmm, good point, this might be a good idea. |
|
Stubtest runs are listed here: https://github.com/python/typeshed/actions/workflows/stubtest.yml
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: