Is there a good reason why `Mapping.__contains__` expects `object`, but `Mapping.get` expects a strict type?
まだ誰も着手していません。
- 主要言語
- Python
- スター
- 5.1k
- フォーク
- 2.1k
- 平均マージ
- 1日 19時間
- マージ済み PR(30日)
- 82
説明
I ran into a case where a user intended to check whether an enum value x was present in a dictionary Dict[int, int]: x.value in d.
But instead they wrote x in d, which always fails, since the Enum itself is never a key in the dictionary. The type checker didn't complain since the typeshed stub for Mapping.__contains__ accepts any type compatible with object:
def __contains__(self, __o: object) -> bool: ...
However, if the user had used d.get(x), the type checker would have complained, because the typeshed stub for Mapping.get is stricter:
def get(self, __key: _KT) -> _VT_co | None: ...
Simple repro:
d: dict[int, int] = {1: 2}
# no type error
'hello' in d
# type error
d.get('hello')
It looks like the stub for __contains__ has expected object ever since typing.pyi was added to typeshed (in 2015). If the idea is that users may want to check for existence of keys of arbitrary types, a similar argument would hold for d.get(x).
Is there a good reason why the stub complains about d.get(x) but not x in d? Otherwise, it'd be good to make __contains__ stricter.
コントリビューションガイド
はじめの一歩
- issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
- 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
- リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
- issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。
調査の方向性
Read the Mapping.contains and Mapping.get stubs in typing.pyi, starting with the historical object annotation for contains. Reproduce the issue with the Dict[int, int] examples, then determine whether the annotations should be made consistent; done means the decision is documented in the issue and the relevant stub reflects it if a change is warranted.
索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。
評価
- 技術スタック
- python
- 領域
- tooling
- issue の種類
- バグ
- 難易度
- 4/5
- 見積もり時間
- 3〜5日
- 活発さ
- 停滞
- 明瞭さ
- おおむね明確
- 初心者へのやさしさ
- 38/100