Add some tests based on coverage report: Part 2 #375
Conversation
| def __eq__(self, other): | ||
| if not isinstance(other, _TypeAlias): | ||
| return NotImplemented | ||
| return self.name == other.name and self.type_var == other.type_var |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why doesn't this check impl_type and type_checker?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an internal class, we know that if name is the same, then impl_type and type_checker must also be the same.
ilevkivskyi
force-pushed
the
fixes-from-cov
branch
from
88a658b to
43a1cb6
Compare
|
OK, It looks like the simplified version depends on changes in #383. @gvanrossum Do you mind if we make |
|
I don't mind in principle, but I still haven't found the energy to review your code. I hope you can find someone else on python-dev to help you review your types changes if Inada doesn't feel comfortable. |
|
@gvanrossum |
|
OK. Since the move to git is currently happening I can't merge anything
into CPython anyway right now, so there's no particular hurry. I wonder if
git can cherry-pick across repos, that would be amazing. Otherwise I guess
it will have to be a series of PRs to the new cpython repo (see
https://paper.dropbox.com/doc/CPython-workflow-changes-mx1k8G6M0rg5JLy80F1r6
).
|
|
One more thing, "mod.py" is a rather non-descript name. Can you come up with something better? |
Yes, exactly, this is among the things I am going to do today. |
|
@gvanrossum I fixed the remaining issue. As I understand the current workflow, a PR should me made to master, and after it is merged, the corresponding squash-commit should be cherry-picked to other branches (3.5 and 3.6 in this case). By the way git can in principle cherry-pick between repos, but I tried this and it feels too complicated, because |
|
Thanks! Godspeed. |
This is a continuation of #373
Here, however, a (very small) change to
typing.pywas necessary. The two PRs boost coverage to virtually 100% (if one does not countpasses in abstract methods and other trivial things).