Python: Support built-ins in API graphs #5388
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
tausbn
changed the title
yoff
previously approved these changes
Mar 12, 2021
*sigh* I guess we really must, since you could have a module called |
Also moves the filtering on `name` to before the big disjunction in `MkModuleImport`.
Just noticed this... I of course mean Python 2. 🤣 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Adds support for accessing built-ins via the API graph. These are placed as members of the
builtinsmodule, mimicking how this works in Python 3.In Python 2, this module is called
__builtin__and we silently alias this tobuiltins. In principle this may cause surprise if people try to write, say,API::moduleImport("__builtin__").getMember("open"), but ideally they should be usingAPI::builtin("open")for this anyway (and with Python 2 being officially deprecated, I see little reason to support this very narrow use-case).At present, this implementation does not try to account for redefinitions of built-ins (as witnessed by the test with the
SPURIOUSannotation).Also, there is some weirdness in one of the tests (the one that has the
MISSINGannotation), but this appears to be unrelated to the present implementation, and more likely due to missing flow into locally-defined functions.