[red-knot] Ensure differently ordered unions are considered equivalent when they appear inside tuples inside top-level intersections #15743
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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] & R
to 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