Skip to content
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

Make str unpacking check opt-in #15511

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

hauntsaninja
Copy link
Collaborator

Fixes #13823. See also #6406

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Diff from mypy_primer, showing the effect of this PR on open source code:

pandas-stubs (https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas-stubs)
- tests/test_frame.py:2001: error: Unpacking a string is disallowed  [misc]
- tests/test_frame.py:2007: error: Unpacking a string is disallowed  [misc]
- tests/test_series.py:606: error: Unpacking a string is disallowed  [misc]
- tests/test_series.py:612: error: Unpacking a string is disallowed  [misc]

operator (https://github.com/canonical/operator)
- ops/framework.py:166: error: Unpacking a string is disallowed  [misc]

aiohttp (https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp)
+ aiohttp/client_reqrep.py:350: error: Unused "type: ignore" comment  [unused-ignore]
+ aiohttp/web_log.py:206: error: Unused "type: ignore" comment  [unused-ignore]
+ aiohttp/web_log.py:207: error: Unused "type: ignore[has-type]" comment  [unused-ignore]
+ aiohttp/web_log.py:208: error: Unused "type: ignore[has-type]" comment  [unused-ignore]
+ aiohttp/web_log.py:209: error: Unused "type: ignore[has-type]" comment  [unused-ignore]

Copy link
Collaborator

@JukkaL JukkaL left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree that it makes sense to make this an opt-in check, since it can generate false positives. Left some minor comments, looks good overall.


.. _code-str-unpacking:

Check that ``str`` is explicitly unpacked [str-unpacking]
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The title is a bit unclear. What about something like "Check that 'str' is not unpacked?". Or "... is not unpacked implicitly", though I'm not sure what's the difference between explicit and implicit unpacking here.

Bikeshedding: what about renaming the error code to str-unpack, which would be a bit shorter?

Check that ``str`` is explicitly unpacked [str-unpacking]
---------------------------------------------------------

It can sometimes be surprising that ``str`` is iterable, especially when unpacking.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Explicitly enumerate the contexts where this matters (for loop, assignment)?

@@ -3491,7 +3491,11 @@ def check_multi_assignment(
self.check_multi_assignment_from_union(
lvalues, rvalue, rvalue_type, context, infer_lvalue_type
)
elif isinstance(rvalue_type, Instance) and rvalue_type.type.fullname == "builtins.str":
elif (
self.msg.errors.is_error_code_enabled(codes.STR_UNPACKING)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this included in --strict, and should it be?

elif (
self.msg.errors.is_error_code_enabled(codes.STR_UNPACKING)
and isinstance(rvalue_type, Instance)
and rvalue_type.type.fullname == "builtins.str"
Copy link
Collaborator

@ethanhs ethanhs Jun 26, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will this check unpacking on Literal strings? Can you add a testcase for that please?

@bfontaine
Copy link

Any idea when this could be merged?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Allow string unpacking again.
4 participants