Add some tests based on coverage report: Part 2 by ilevkivskyi · Pull Request #375 · python/typing
Conversation
This is a continuation of #373
Here, however, a (very small) change to typing.py was necessary. The two PRs boost coverage to virtually 100% (if one does not count passes in abstract methods and other trivial things).
| def __eq__(self, other): | ||
| if not isinstance(other, _TypeAlias): | ||
| return NotImplemented | ||
| return self.name == other.name and self.type_var == other.type_var |
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why doesn't this check impl_type and type_checker?
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is an internal class, we know that if name is the same, then impl_type and type_checker must also be the same.
OK, It looks like the simplified version depends on changes in #383.
I will leave it like this until #383 is (hopefully) merged.
@gvanrossum Do you mind if we make GenericMeta code a bit more complex for 4x memory and 2x speed optimization? (this came up on python-dev some time ago)
I don't mind in principle, but I still haven't found the energy to review your code. I hope you can find someone else on python-dev to help you review your types changes if Inada doesn't feel comfortable.
Ivan Levkivskyi and others added 2 commits
@gvanrossum
I have merged discussed PRs, but there is one thing that needs to be fixed before merging this into CPython: I added a test module mod.py some time ago (it was required to verify that cross-module type caching works right, a bug was reported). I will fix import for this module, and then it will be necessary to copy it to /Lib/test (where ann_module.py etc live). I will let you know, when everything is ready (probably later today).
One more thing, "mod.py" is a rather non-descript name. Can you come up with something better?
Can you come up with something better?
Yes, exactly, this is among the things I am going to do today.
@gvanrossum I fixed the remaining issue. As I understand the current workflow, a PR should me made to master, and after it is merged, the corresponding squash-commit should be cherry-picked to other branches (3.5 and 3.6 in this case).
I have made a PR to CPython master python/cpython#28
By the way git can in principle cherry-pick between repos, but I tried this and it feels too complicated, because typing and cpython have quite different directory structure (it is quite easy however to cherry-pick a single commit between repos).