feat(visitor): skip type checking blocks #652
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Resolves #556.
PR Checklist
docs
is updatedDescription of changes
When guarding imports with
TYPE_CHECKING
in combination withfrom __future__ import annotations
, they are not evaluated at runtime (https://peps.python.org/pep-0563/). This PR implements that behavior, by completely skipping those imports in the import visitor.An alternative implementation could be to flag dependencies as "typing only" instead of skipping them. This would allow
deptry
to triggerDEP001
(missing dependencies).This would also avoid having
deptry
triggerDEP002
if a dependency is only used for typing, but for this one IMO, it's actually a good thing that it would report a violation, as the dependency is not necessary at runtime, so it should not be a non-dev direct dependency. Still, this is something that could be weird for users that encounter such issues. I've added a new documentation section that details how imports are extracted to at least explain the mechanism used.I'm not really sure that the extra burden of flagging the dependencies instead of completely skipping them is worth it, but let me know if you think otherwise, I'd be ok with updating the implementation.