stubtest: do not require @disjoint_base if there are __slots__ #19701
Conversation
mypy/stubtest.py
Outdated
| if is_disjoint_runtime and not stub.is_disjoint_base: | ||
| # Don't complain about missing @disjoint_base if there are __slots__, because | ||
| # in that case we can infer that it's a disjoint base. | ||
| if is_disjoint_runtime and not stub.is_disjoint_base and stub.slots is None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
__slots__ only make a class a disjoint base if __slots__ are set to a non-empty sequence:
>>> class Foo:
... __slots__ = ()
...
>>> class Bar:
... __slots__ = ()
...
>>> class Baz(Foo, Bar): ...
...does this logic account for that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh yes this is wrong, it also includes slots from parent classes.
| if is_disjoint_runtime and not stub.is_disjoint_base: | ||
| # Don't complain about missing @disjoint_base if there are __slots__, because | ||
| # in that case we can infer that it's a disjoint base. | ||
| if is_disjoint_runtime and not stub.is_disjoint_base and not runtime.__dict__.get("__slots__"): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if it's a disjoint base at runtime because it has __slots__, maybe we could change the error message to say "has __slots__ at runtime (making it a disjoint base), but doesn't have __slots__ in the stub"? And ideally tell the user what the __slots__ are at runtime.
Otherwise I worry we'll have contributors adding @disjoint_base to the stubs because a stubtest error message told them to, when actually they should be adding __slots__
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code now doesn't make you add @disjoint_base if there are __slots__. Instead stubtest (somewhere else) should just directly tell you to add __slots__.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ohh, I see, sorry! I misread
No description provided.