[ty] Prefer exact matches when solving constrained type variables#21165
Merged
ibraheemdev merged 1 commit intomainfrom Oct 31, 2025
Merged
[ty] Prefer exact matches when solving constrained type variables#21165ibraheemdev merged 1 commit intomainfrom
ibraheemdev merged 1 commit intomainfrom
Conversation
ibraheemdev
requested review from
AlexWaygood,
carljm,
dcreager and
sharkdp
as code owners
Contributor
Diagnostic diff on typing conformance testsNo changes detected when running ty on typing conformance tests ✅ |
Contributor
|
dcreager
approved these changes
Oct 31, 2025
Member
dcreager
left a comment
dcreager
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good! And this will be a nice regression test for when we start to land the new solver
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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
The solver is currently order-dependent, and will choose a supertype over the exact type if it appears earlier in the list of constraints. We could be smarter and try to choose the most precise subtype, but I imagine this is something the new constraint solver will fix anyways, and this fixes the issue showing up on #21070.