-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Enforce consistent use of Literal
and None
#435
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ece3256
WIP: Check for None used inside Literal[...]
tomasr8 295450e
Simplify code
tomasr8 32b4eb0
Improve error message
tomasr8 4a45154
Update error codes documentation
tomasr8 ed96610
Add changelog
tomasr8 e22520a
Improve tests
tomasr8 45db397
Improve docs
tomasr8 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
from typing import Literal | ||
|
||
Literal[None] # Y061 None inside "Literal[]" expression. Replace with "None" | ||
Literal[True, None] # Y061 None inside "Literal[]" expression. Replace with "Literal[True] | None" | ||
Literal[1, None, "foo", None] # Y061 None inside "Literal[]" expression. Replace with "Literal[1, 'foo', None] | None" | ||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This still isn't great, because we're suggesting code that we'd immediately complain about, if the user implemented our suggestion. I think you're right, though, that the best way to deal with this would be to introduce another error code that complains about duplicate members inside a
Literal[]
slice -- a version of Y016, but forLiteral[]
slices. We could refrain from emitting Y061 if we knew we'd already emitted that error.Since this is a really unlikely edge case, I think it would be fine to implement that as a followup PR -- are you interested in doing so? If not, I'm happy to take a look at implementing it :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that a separate check for duplicate elements is probably the cleanest solution here.
I can't guarantee that I'll have the time to work on the followup in the coming days, so if you'd like to have it done sooner rather than later, go for it :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can't guarantee I'll have time in the next few days either, so I guess we'll just have to see who gets to it first 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey! I hope you can still see the notifications on here 😅 I saw that you've improved the error message for the duplicate
None
edge case. So I was wondering if we still wanted to add a separate rule for duplicateLiteral[]
members in general?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hiya! Yes, I'd still take that as a PR, I think. We already flag duplicate union members; it seems consistent to also flag duplicate Literal members :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cool! I'll try to put something together this weekend :)