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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
andNone
#435Enforce consistent use of
Literal
andNone
#435Changes from 6 commits
ece3256
295450e
32b4eb0
4a45154
ed96610
e22520a
45db397
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 :)