[red-knot] Ensure differently ordered unions are considered equivalent when they appear inside tuples inside top-level intersections#15743
Merged
AlexWaygood merged 1 commit intomainfrom Jan 25, 2025
Conversation
…t when they appear inside tuples inside top-level intersections
AlexWaygood
requested review from
MichaReiser,
carljm and
sharkdp
as code owners
Member
Author
dcreager
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 27, 2025
* main: Run `cargo update` (#15769) [red-knot] Document public symbol type inferece (#15766) Update dawidd6/action-download-artifact action to v8 (#15760) Update NPM Development dependencies (#15758) Update pre-commit dependencies (#15756) Update dependency ruff to v0.9.3 (#15755) Update dependency mdformat-mkdocs to v4.1.2 (#15754) Update Rust crate uuid to v1.12.1 (#15753) Update Rust crate unicode-ident to v1.0.15 (#15752) Fix docstring in ruff_annotate_snippets (#15748) Update Rust crate insta to v1.42.1 (#15751) Update Rust crate clap to v4.5.27 (#15750) Add references to `trio.run_process` and `anyio.run_process` (#15761) [`ruff`] Do not emit diagnostic when all arguments to `zip()` are variadic (`RUF058`) (#15744) [red-knot] Ensure differently ordered unions are considered equivalent when they appear inside tuples inside top-level intersections (#15743) [red-knot] Ensure differently ordered unions and intersections are understood as equivalent even inside arbitrarily nested tuples (#15740) [red-knot] Promote the `all_type_pairs_are_assignable_to_their_union` property test to stable (#15739) [`pylint`] Do not trigger `PLR6201` on empty collections (#15732) Improve the file watching failure error message (#15728) Speed symbol state merging back up (#15731)
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.
Summary
Another oversight in type equivalence, that I spotted by re-reading some of the code in
types.rs. In this round of type-equivalence whackamole, we were not consideringtuple[P | Q] & Rto be equivalent totuple[Q | P] & R. This bug only manifested if a union was nested directly inside a tuple nested directly inside a top-level intersection.It sure would be easier to ensure we got all these cases right if unions only ever appeared in a canonical order 😉 I'm not yet pushing for us to reconsider the direction we went in #15516, but there is definitely a maintenance burden here.
Test Plan
main