[record] support abstract properties on base classes #22946
Merged
Conversation
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 stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. Join @alangenfeld and the rest of your teammates on |
alangenfeld
force-pushed
the
al/07-10-_record_support_abstract_properties_on_base_classes
branch
from
9bbf4a2
to
a20d3be
Compare
alangenfeld
force-pushed
the
al/07-10-_record_support_abstract_properties_on_base_classes
branch
from
a20d3be
to
b3193b2
Compare
alangenfeld
deleted the
al/07-10-_record_support_abstract_properties_on_base_classes
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
When working on #22860 I believed that class vars on abstract base classes acted similar to abstract property. While at runtime the class var does not exist if its not implemented on a child class, the type checker and runtime do not prevent you from omitting an implementation for that memeber on a concrete child class.
This address the issue by ensuring that NamedTuple fields that conflict are moved up to the
__dict__of the generated type so that their precedance is greater than the abstract property definition on any base class.How I Tested These Changes
updated tests