-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.1k
Preserve narrowing in unreachable code #20710
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
According to mypy_primer, this change doesn't affect type check results on a corpus of open source code. ✅ |
JukkaL
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not a full review, but I'm interested if this affects performance.
|
|
||
| # The second pass narrows down the types and type checks bodies. | ||
| unmatched_types: TypeMap = None | ||
| unmatched_types: TypeMap = {s.subject: UninhabitedType()} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now we construct some extra temporary dictionaries and UninhabitedType objects. Can you measure if this has measurable performance impact?
|
There is maybe some perf impact, something like 0.3% on self check I think it's well worth the cost. Not checking unreachable code is one of the most surprising mypy behaviours and it's a thing that makes accurately improving narrowing right now quite scary (see e.g. #20660 (comment) or fixing #12535 ) I also do think I can maybe claw some of it back in future refactors |
A5rocks
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense!
If perf really matters, maybe we can replace the dictionaries with an associative list or something like that. Or even a 2-tuple if a function is guaranteed to return at most 1 result! But IMO it's worth it to take a slight perf hit in order to provide new functionality.
|
Yes, I was experimenting with 2-tuples and this is promising (but a larger change). Esp since we actually probably want to combine keyed by I also recently landed several percentage point improvements, so I feel it is okay if I spend 0.3% :-) |
In the future, it would be nice to have an option to continue to check unreachable code. See #18707 from A5rocks. This PR lays some semantics preserving groundwork for that.
This is effectively a subset of #18707 , but I go just a little bit further and change the type of TypeMap to exclude None
Btw A5rocks if you are willing to rebase your PR, that would be great. I think
--check-unreachablewill be a very useful feature.Co-authored-by: A5rocks