python / python/typing

Conformance test: make dataclass_hash.py not rely on `typing.Hashable`?

Open
#1,765 2 comments 2 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

topic: conformance tests
Dominant language
Python
Stars
1.8k
Forks
302
Avg merge
23h
Merged PRs (30d)
8

Description

I noticed that the conformance test currently enforces a hashability check on dataclasses:
https://github.com/python/typing/blame/6d5c186ea3f45dd80dcad9f172479b270e54966a/conformance/tests/dataclasses_hash.py

If we take the annotation of typing.Hashable and the annotation of object literally, then no type errors should be reported on that file, as typing.Hashable is a protocol that requires a def __hash__(self) -> int method, and object satisfies that protocol regardless of whether the dataclass transform creates its own __hash__ method or not.

I understand that the issue of deciding whether an object is hashable or not in type checkers is a tricky business and there was a lot of pre-existing discussions/proposals around it. This makes me wonder if it's worth doing a dedicated "hashability" section in the spec, and use separate conformance tests to establish how typing.Hashable assignability should be handled. My understanding is that the pre-existing dataclass hash tests is intended to just test about whether the __hash__ method is nullified or not under the dataclass transform, but by testing it via typing.Hashable it kinds of indirectly dictate hashable assignment behaviors as a side effect.

Concretely, what I had in mind was a refactor to dataclasses_hash.py, where we change the current assertions of the form

# This should generate an error because DC1 isn't hashable.
v: Hashable = DC(0)

into something like this:

assert_type(DC(0).__hash__, NoneType)  # OK

The new version does not depend on how typing.Hashable gets defined in typeshed, and it (arguably) aligns more directly with the intention of the tests. But I am unsure about how controversial this proposal would be and hence want to get some feedback on it first.

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

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 with conformance/tests/dataclasses_hash.py and compare its Hashable-based assertions with the dataclass hash behavior described in the issue. Read the referenced typing.Hashable and object annotations, then review the existing conformance expectations. Done means the test checks the dataclass hash result directly without depending on typeshed's Hashable definition.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
python
Domain
testing-qa
Issue type
Refactor
Difficulty
3/5
Estimated time
1-2 days
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
35/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.