gh-91002: Support functools.partial and functools.partialmethod inspect in annotationlib.get_annotations #139753
Conversation
… inspect in annotationlib.get_annotations Signed-off-by: Manjusaka <me@manjusaka.me>
| >>> add_10 = partial(add, 10) | ||
| >>> get_annotations(add_10) | ||
| {'b': <class 'int'>, 'c': <class 'int'>, 'return': <class 'int'>} | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This could refer to the new section below rather that repeating the example, what do you think?
| # The first parameter (self/cls) should remain, but bound args should be removed | ||
| try: | ||
| # Get the function signature | ||
| func_sig = inspect.signature(func) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will fail if the original function's signature has annotations that do not evaluate in the VALUE format.
| return new_annotations | ||
|
|
||
| except (ValueError, TypeError): | ||
| # If we can't process, return the original annotations |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why? If we can't get correct annotations, we ideally shouldn't return wrong ones.
| May not return a fresh dictionary. | ||
| """ | ||
| import functools |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This import is in the crucial code path for annotationlib, it doesn't make sense to make it lazy.
| fr.evaluate() | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class TestFunctoolsPartialMethod(unittest.TestCase): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add tests involving functools.Placeholder.
|
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase |
3 participants
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--139753.org.readthedocs.build/