-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 375
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
Docs should clearly describe pyright
interaction patterns.
#1273
Comments
Originally posted by @Stealthii in #795 (comment) Another instance of an interaction pattern that's correct runtime behavior, but actually a |
@hynek I totally appreciate how frustrating some of these redirects from Then, hopefully, redirects coming in from the As the "one who opened the box" on some of this in #795 I'd happily step-up to write this if you're keen. |
I've been thinking about it for a while, but I kinda didn't come up with anything how to do it. Do you already have something more concrete on your mind? |
It might be useful to point out that attrs issues w/ the PEP are intentional from the part of the PEP (#795 (comment)) and then talk about workarounds necessary for libraries (because those have to adapt too)? For instance, putting |
Having users directed to the
attrs
issue tracker withpyright
type-checking issues described as bugs in attrs doesn't feel great.Originally posted by @hynek in #1170 (comment)
There are variety of issues redirected into the attrs issue tracker describing what are (essentially) issues with PEP681's description of attrs and resulting inconsistencies with
pyright
-based static type checking ofattrs
classes.These aren't issues with
attrs
, which supports PEP681 andpyright
on a best-effort basis. Absent an explicit dataclass-compatible namespace, these deviations are (at most) a documentation issue forattrs
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: