| msg274702 - (view) |
Author: David E. Franco G. (David E. Franco G.) |
Date: 2016-09-07 02:19 |
| the issue is that when calling help on a function annotated with typing, all the relevant information is lost, for example from typing import List, Any, Iterator, Tuple def foo(data:List[Any]) -> Iterator[ Tuple[int,Any] ]: ... when calling help on that >>> help(foo) Help on function foo in module __main__: foo(data:typing.List) -> typing.Iterator >>> all the information is lost, the output should look like this >>> help(foo) Help on function foo in module __main__: foo(data:List[Any]) -> Iterator[ Tuple[int, Any] ]: >>> where all the information that I put in the annotation is preserved and the typing.* are eliminated since they only add unnecessary noise while reporting this issue in the typing module (https://github.com/python/typing/issues/279) I was told that is a bug with the inspect module and that help may need modification. Thank for your time. |
|
|
| msg274734 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) *  |
Date: 2016-09-07 03:13 |
| It seems the output produced here is generated by inspect.signature(), which is called by pydoc in this case (in both versions of docroutine()). I don't know if the right thing to do is to change inspect.signature() here, or to change pydoc to use something else to format the argument list. |
|
|
| msg274787 - (view) |
Author: Spencer Brown (Spencer Brown) * |
Date: 2016-09-07 09:59 |
| More precisely, the issue is with inspect.formatannotation(), which overrides/ignores the repr if the annotation is an instance of type. Perhaps that should be changed to also check that __repr__ is type's repr. |
|
|
| msg274814 - (view) |
Author: David E. Franco G. (David E. Franco G.) |
Date: 2016-09-07 14:18 |
| as that is the case, how about this as a solution: def formatannotation(annotation, base_module=None): if isinstance(annotation, type): if annotation.__module__ in ('builtins', base_module): return annotation.__qualname__ elif annotation.__module__ in ('typing', base_module): return repr(annotation).replace("typing.","") return annotation.__module__+'.'+annotation.__qualname__ return repr(annotation) the same way that it check for builtins, do it for typing and clean up a little. With that change the result with the example is >>> help(foo) Help on function foo in module __main__: foo(data:List[Any]) -> Iterator[Tuple[int, Any]] >>> |
|
|
| msg274879 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2016-09-07 20:18 |
| That sounds a fine solution (except the elif should just test for `in 'typing'`). Can one of you prepare a patch? I think it should be fine to fix this in 3.5 as well. There should be a unit test for this. |
|
|
| msg274881 - (view) |
Author: Spencer Brown (Spencer Brown) * |
Date: 2016-09-07 20:42 |
| It might be better to just change the if statement to 'if isinstance(annotation, type) and type(annotation).__repr__ is type.__repr__:'. That would make it fallback for any metaclass which overrides repr, instead of special-casing typing. That also ensures 'typing.' is still in the name, since these aren't builtins. |
|
|
| msg274889 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2016-09-07 20:54 |
| I've lost you -- why don't you upload a patch? |
|
|
| msg274904 - (view) |
Author: David E. Franco G. (David E. Franco G.) |
Date: 2016-09-07 22:48 |
| I think that removing the "typing." is for the best, with the example above >>> help(foo) Help on function foo in module __main__: foo(data:typing.List[typing.Any]) -> typing.Iterator[typing.Tuple[int, typing.Any]] >>> leaving the "typing." produce result that I think are ugly and distracting, not only that, is unnecessary long to convey the same information that can be in a more neat way without it, and more so while more complicated/long the signature is. just compare the above with this >>> help(foo) Help on function foo in module __main__: foo(data:List[Any]) -> Iterator[Tuple[int, Any]]: >>> which is a clear winner to me. Or perhaps alongside modifying inspect.formatannotation also change the __repr__ in typing to exclude the `typing.` or like with for instance TypeVar produce a repr that include some marker instead, like ~ and in that way indicate that one is using typing object resulting in something like this >>> help(foo) Help on function foo in module __main__: foo(data:~List[Any]) -> ~Iterator[~Tuple[int, ~Any]]: >>> which is a little weird but still neat |
|
|
| msg279190 - (view) |
Author: Ivan Levkivskyi (levkivskyi) * |
Date: 2016-10-22 14:05 |
| Here is the patch according to the discussion (modifying inspect). I didn't change the rendering of docs for classes (neither stripped 'typing.' nor changed __bases__ to __orig_bases__). First, collections.abc.X are widely used as base classes, so that plain Mapping could be confused with collections.abc.Mapping. Second, seeing the actual runtime type-erased bases suggests that one should use isinstance() and issubclass() with those (not with, e.g., Mapping[int, str], the latter will raise TypeError). |
|
|
| msg279191 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2016-10-22 14:35 |
| Hm, I actually like the original proposal better. Perhaps collections.abc.Mapping is more common than typing.Mapping, but is it more common *in function annotations*? I don't think so. Also, I like showing e.g. Iterator[Tuple[int, Any]] rather than just Iterator. This is documentation we're talking about, and the parameter types are very useful as documentation. (However, abbreviating List[Any] as List is fine, since they mean the same thing.) |
|
|
| msg279192 - (view) |
Author: Ivan Levkivskyi (levkivskyi) * |
Date: 2016-10-22 14:41 |
| For function annotations I did as originally proposed. In my previous comment I was talking about documentation for classes. For example: class C(Generic[T], Mapping[int, str]): ... pydoc.render_doc(C) will show "class C(typing.Mapping)". while for function annotations typing is indeed much more common so that pydoc.render_doc(foo) will show foo(data: List[Any]) -> Iterator[Tuple[int, Any]] |
|
|
| msg279193 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2016-10-22 14:53 |
| OK, sounds good then. I guess most of the work was in typing.py, not in inspect. :-) |
|
|
| msg279194 - (view) |
Author: Ivan Levkivskyi (levkivskyi) * |
Date: 2016-10-22 14:55 |
| Actually, for classes, it is probably worth adding a separate section "Generic type info" that will render information using __orig_bases__, __parameters__, and __args__. At the same time the "header" will be the same as now, listing runtime __bases__. What do you think about this? Should I open a separate issue? |
|
|
| msg279195 - (view) |
Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev)  |
Date: 2016-10-22 14:58 |
| New changeset dc030d15f80d by Guido van Rossum in branch '3.5': Issue #27989: Tweak inspect.formatannotation() to improve pydoc rendering of function annotations. Ivan L. https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/dc030d15f80d New changeset 3937502c149d by Guido van Rossum in branch '3.6': Issue #27989: Tweak inspect.formatannotation() to improve pydoc rendering of function annotations. Ivan L. (3.5->3.6) https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3937502c149d New changeset 62127e60e7b0 by Guido van Rossum in branch 'default': Issue #27989: Tweak inspect.formatannotation() to improve pydoc rendering of function annotations. Ivan L. (3.6->3.7) https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/62127e60e7b0 |
|
|
| msg279197 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2016-10-22 15:01 |
| Honestly I think pydoc is already too verbose. It would be better if the class header looked more like what was written in the source code -- that is the most compact way to render it. I say open a separate issue since this issue is about functions. |
|
|