types: fix variance issues and improve type coverage#3450
Open
jorenham wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The generic types in
click.typeswere all parametrized using an invariant type parameter. This can easily lead to unexpected type errors for downstream users. For example, type-checkers would not allow you to assignParamType[bool]to anParamType[int], even thoughboolis a subclass ofint. This addresses these issues by using appropriate variance for these generic type parameters.This also fixes several other typing issues, removing several
# type: ignores andt,casts.I also took the parametrize some of the typed dicts, avoid several (intrinsically type-unsafe)
Anyannotations.And just like #3422, this also fills in the missing annotations of attributes and constants. This consequently increases the type coverage by 2.18% (91.5% -> 93.68%).
I realize there are quite a lot of changes here. But I was afraid that spreading these out over multiple PRs would result in a merge conflict mess. But if you want me to split this up anyway, then that's also fine as far as I'm concerned.