Inconsistent behavior when validating type parameter substitutions
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
- Lenguaje dominante
- Python
- Estrellas
- 77.2k
- Forks
- 35.9k
- Métricas de merge de PR
- Métricas de PR pendientes
Descripción
Bug report
Bug description:
There are currently three different cases (two of them being closely related) where type parameters can be substituted/parameterized with concrete types:
-
On a user-defined generic class:
class MyGeneric[T1, T2]: ... alias = MyGeneric[int, str] -
On an already parameterized alias (following the previous example):
temp_alias = MyGeneric[int, T2] alias = temp_alias[str] -
On a PEP 695 type alias:
type MyAlias[T1, T2] = dict[T1, T2] gen_alias = MyAlias[int, str]
All of these three cases have slightly different behavior. The one that seems to be the most accurate is the second one. As alias is a _GenericAlias instance, parameterizing it will call _GenericAlias.__getitem__. There is a bunch of logic in there, and it seems that both __typing_prepare_subst__ and then __typing_subst__ (which is only doing type check assertions) are being called.
However, the first case is not making the calls to __typing_subst__, meaning the following would unexpectedly work:
class A[T, **P]: ...
A[int, str]
# ok at runtime, should fail as `P` should be substituted with a valid parameter expression
# (another ParamSpec, the ellipsis, a list/tuple of types or a Concatenate form).
If you do the same on a _GenericAlias instance (matches the second case), an error is raised:
alias = A[T, P]
alias[int, str]
# TypeError: Expected a list of types, an ellipsis, ParamSpec, or Concatenate. Got <class 'str'>
This leads us to the first point: should we apply the same logic between these two cases? To avoid breaking changes, we might have to consider forward references:
class A[T, **P]: ...
A[int, 'ForwardParamSpec']
ForwardParamSpec = ParamSpec('ForwardParamSpec')
So perhaps we can exclude ForwardRef from the type check in ParamSpec.__typing_subst__ (note that it already doesn't work for the second case).
I'll also note that having __typing_subst__ not called is not the only difference. For instance, the second case also calls _unpack_args() on the passed args, while the first case doesn't [^1]
Onto the last case (PEP 695 type aliases), currently no validation is performed whatsoever:
type MyAlias[T1, T2] = dict[T1, T2]
MyAlias[int] # no error
So the second point is: should we apply the same logic as in case 1/2? Again, I don't know if applying the same logic here on type aliases is going to introduce any breaking changes concerns?
[^1]: Here is an example of how this manifests: https://gist.github.com/Viicos/db10da58914809a87c0a82c1b2f19162
CPython versions tested on:
3.14
Operating systems tested on:
Linux
Guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Línea de trabajo
Comienza en Lib/typing.py con _GenericAlias.getitem, ParamSpec.typing_subst y _unpack_args(), y luego compara esas rutas con la sustitución directa de clases genéricas y de alias de tipo de PEP 695. Usa los ejemplos del informe para determinar si la validación debería ser coherente, incluidas las referencias adelantadas, y verifica el comportamiento resultante en los tres casos.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Evaluación
- Stack tecnológico
- python
- Área
- compilers
- Tipo de issue
- Error
- Dificultad
- 5/5
- Tiempo estimado
- Más de una semana
- Estado de actividad
- Estancado
- Claridad
- Necesita aclaración
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 25/100