`name` and `mode` attributes only documented for `io.FileIO` but exist for `TextIOWrapper`, `BufferedReader`, and `BufferedWriter` as well
还没有人认领这个 Issue。
- 主要语言
- Python
- 星标
- 77.2k
- 派生
- 35.9k
- PR 合并指标
- PR 指标待抓取
描述
Documentation
The facts
The io docs only list a name attribute for io.FileIO, which represents a raw (= unbuffered) binary stream backed by a file.
open returns an instance of io.TextIOWrapper, io.BufferedReader, or io.BufferedWriter unless called with buffering=0 in which case it does return a FileIO instance. But this is rare so these 3 classes are much more common than FileIO in everyday Python.
A name attribute isn't documented for any of these classes, despite the fact that their CPython implementations define name properties that delegate to the underlying streams:
_BufferedIOMixin, the parent of BufferedReader and BufferedWriter, delegates name to its underlying raw (= unbuffered) stream:
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/9d8f2d8e08336695fdade5846da4bbcc3eb5f152/Lib/_pyio.py#L834-L836
TextIOWrapper delegates name to its underlying binary stream:
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/9d8f2d8e08336695fdade5846da4bbcc3eb5f152/Lib/_pyio.py#L2190-L2192
These are not marked as internal or deprecated in any way, so one can only assume they are meant for use by the general public.
Moreover, the docs refer to FileIO.name when it's clear from context that the file object in question doesn't have to be unbuffered (like FileIO necessarily is) at least once, when describing tarfile.gettarinfo:
[...] otherwise, the name is taken from fileobj’s
nameattribute, [...]
Except for this last one, the same facts hold for the mode attribute.
Making sense of this
While there is no subtype relationship between FileIO and these other classes, it seems to me like they're meant to be understood as "quasi-subtypes" of FileIO at least as far as name and mode are concerned if the underlying stream of an instance is itself an instance of FileIO.
But, unless I missed it, this is never spelled out anywhere in the io docs.
How to fix this
Option 1: Document these attributes in the io docs
Assuming everything I wrote above turns out to be correct and these attributes really are meant to be actually used:
Option 1.1: Add name and mode attribute docs for all 3 classes separately
This would make things very explicit and easy to grasp for users who only skim the docs, but comes at the cost of being a bit repetitious.
Option 1.2: Add a sentence or paragraph explaining the "quasi-subtype" relationship with FileIO
This would be easy to miss for users who only skim the docs, but still better than the current situation.
To avoid repeating the explanation for all 3 classes, it might be put somewhere in the introduction of io's docs, which, however, would make it even easier to miss. An inheritance diagram right at the start like in the pathlib docs might help out here (that might be a good idea regardless and probably deserves its own issue).
Option 2: Document these attributes in typing.IO
The typing.IO interface specifies a name property as well, but it's hard for users to find that out without looking at the typeshed source because its documentation doesn't list any members.
That would have been worthy of an issue of its own, but given that typing.IO seems to be on its way to deprecation anyway (https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/92877), I guess we can rule it out.
Option 3: Mark these attributes as deprecated/internal/implementation detail
If I'm wrong and these attributes are not meant to be actually used or should be considered CPython implementation details, it might make sense to document that somehow.
I don't know what the process here is, but just adding a docstring or comment in the CPython property implementations I cited above would probably help.
Related issues
- https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/62734
- Not exactly the same as it's about documenting the type of
FileIO.namemore accurately.
- Not exactly the same as it's about documenting the type of
- https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/76775
- Issue about two things: 1. Again the type of
namebeing weird and 2. the fact thatnameisn't documented inopen()'s documentation. Because of (1), got closed as a duplicate of https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/62734, even though there is another issue in there.
- Issue about two things: 1. Again the type of
Linked PRs
- gh-142753
贡献指南
从这里开始
- 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
- Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
- 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。
调研方向
审查 FileIO、TextIOWrapper、BufferedReader 和 BufferedWriter 的 io 文档,以及链接的 gh-142753 pull request。确认 name 和 mode 是公共属性还是实现细节,然后根据该决定调整文档,并验证对 tarfile.gettarinfo 的引用是否准确。
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
评估
- 技术栈
- python
- 领域
- documentation
- Issue 类型
- 文档
- 难度
- 4/5
- 预计耗时
- 3-5 天
- 活跃度
- 停滞
- 描述清晰度
- 需要澄清
- 新手友好度
- 25/100