python / python/typeshed

Type annotation for itertools.zip_longest() lacks constraint on how many values in each tuple may match the fillvalue.

Open
#12,733 2 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Dominant language
Python
Stars
5.1k
Forks
2.1k
Avg merge
1d 19h
Merged PRs (30d)
82

Description

I stumbled across this issue when working on some code structured like this:

# seq1 has a type of list[int]
# seq2 has a type of list[str]
# Neither has None anywhere in their values

for item in itertools.zip_longest(seq1, seq2, fillvalue=None):
    assert item[0] is not None or item[1] is not None

    match item:
        case (None, v2):
            ...
        case (v1, None) if v1 > some_value:
            ...
        case (v1, None):
            ...
        case (v1, v2):
            ...

The assert will never actually fire assuming typing constraints on the lists are met, because the typing of the two lists being passed to itertools.zip_longest() is such that item cannot be (None, None). However, the type hints of itertools.zip_longest() indicate in this case that the type of item in the above code sample is tuple[int | None, str | None]. This means that type checkers (and anybody looking only at the type information and not the semantics of itertools.zip_longest()) think that that assert could fail.

What’s worse is that this seems to have knock-on effects causing at least mypy to become sufficiently confused that it makes outlandish claims such as stating that the first case in the match statement is impossible because the first item in the tuple would have to have a type that is a subtype of str and None, that the type of v1 in the second case is int | None, and that the final case is completely unreachable. I have not tested with other type checkers, but my experience with other parts of the ecosystem as a whole suggest that they would also be confused by this code.

It’s technically possible update this code to get the type checker to actually understand that all of that is absolute hogwash, but it requires adding extra checks to each case statement to ensure that v1 and v2 are not None, resulting in code that is both significantly more verbose and has a longer runtime, all just to satisfy type checking.

In theory, it should be possible to fix this for the specific cases of defined numbers of iterables being passed to itertools.zip_longest() by changing the typing of the return values. For the example above, changing the return type of the overload case for two iterables and a specified fillvalue to the following should resolve the issue:

zip_longest[tuple[_T1 | _T2] | tuple[_T1, _T] | tuple[_T, _T2]]

I’d be happy to put together a PR to do this, but it’s a lot of typing that doesn’t seem like it can be easily done programmatically, and I wanted to confirm whether such a solution would even be considered acceptable before actually starting on it since it quickly gets very ugly for cases of more iterables (requiring 2ⁿ-1 total tuple types for n iterables).

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by inspecting the typeshed stub overloads for itertools.zip_longest() and the proposed return type for two iterables with a specified fillvalue. Compare the behavior with mypy on the example; done means the annotation preserves the possible tuple shapes without incorrectly making match cases unreachable, while determining whether the approach is acceptable for larger iterable counts.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
python
Domain
devtools
Issue type
Bug
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
35/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.