String annotations [PEP 563] #4390

gvanrossum · 2017-11-14T00:48:21Z

~~This is unfinished work by @ambv.~~ UPDATE: this is ready for review now.

I'm adding it here because patching and reviewing are easier (for me anyway) when it's in PR form. Also, @serhiy-storchaka your eye would be appreciated, esp. for the hairy AST unparsing code in C. (Also, if you had to do this from scratch, would it be easier to unparse the CST instead?)

gvanrossum · 2017-11-14T01:33:45Z

I'm guessing there are still crasher bugs in here... E.g.

>>> from __future__ import string_annotations
>>> def f(a: list[str]): pass
... 
Segmentation fault: 11

serhiy-storchaka

There are crashes because the work is unfinished. Some parts still are not implemented (in particularly subscribing). Error checking is minimal if exists.

All concatenation has quadratic time. I think it is worth to implement simple accumulator that uses overallocated array and makes concatenations for linear time. Or you can reuse existing _PyBytesWriter or _PyUnicodeWriter.

Yes, maybe unparsing the CST could be much simpler. But we don't have feature flags at this stage.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-14T06:26:02Z

Python/compile.c

+    ann_as_str = PyUnicode_InternFromString(ann_as_charp);
+    if (!ann_as_str)
+        return 0;
+    ADDOP_O(c, LOAD_CONST, ann_as_str, consts);


ann_as_str is leaked. Use ADDOP_N.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-14T06:28:00Z

Python/compile.c

+    char *ann_as_charp;
+    static PyObject *ann_as_str;
+
+    ann_as_charp = PyAST_StrFromAstExpr(annotation, 1, 1);


Check if not NULL.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-14T06:37:48Z

Python/ast.c

+wrap_parens(char * str)
+{
+    char *result;
+    result = PyMem_RawMalloc(strlen(str) + 3);


Results of all allocations should be checked for NULL.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-14T06:47:31Z

Python/ast.c

+        return str_for_ast_list(e);
+    case Tuple_kind:
+        return str_for_ast_tuple(e, omit_parens);
+    }


Add the default case. At least for debugging.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-14T07:10:05Z

If unparse the AST I would move the code into a separate file. There will be a lot of code, comparable with the size of compile.c.

ambv · 2017-11-18T14:57:59Z

Alright, I'm going to:

change the future name back to annotations (yay!)
stick to AST unparsing
move this work to a separate file
change concatenation to use the accumulator pattern (reusing _PyBytesWriter would be great)
finish the functionality

gvanrossum · 2017-11-18T20:13:04Z

Sounds great! I am pretty happy to see where this is going, I'd like to see it in a solid state by the time beta 1 comes around.

ambv · 2017-11-18T22:51:30Z

All comments from Serhiy's review acted upon, the import renamed back to "annotations" like commented above. The only missing piece in the implementation is f-string support but my battery will die soon so I wanted to push this out for you to look at.

Shouldn't segfault anymore, trying to use f-strings raises an exception instead.

ambv · 2017-11-18T23:09:29Z

Hm, the clang Travis CI build is failing due to invalid whitespace. make patchcheck is complaining about Include/code.h, suggesting the following diff:
https://gist.github.com/ambv/9f0874d56c7cf0d5ce98dfef38de0ce6

This diff is suggesting a lot of changes but not on the single line that I modified ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ambv · 2017-11-18T23:15:57Z

I added a commit that fixes the whitespace according to the generated patch above so that I can see Travis CI passing. We can decide what to do with it later.

AppVeyor is failing because we need to modify PCbuild/* but I don't have access to a Windows box.

NEWS entry is not there yet since Blurb is tied to BPO issues and I'm wondering whether creating dummy issues for PEP work isn't redundant? I asked @larryhastings, we can also deal with this later.

ambv · 2017-11-20T19:45:43Z

Changes:

Rebased on top of latest master
Added a NEWS entry (manually since this is a PEP; the bot doesn't recognize this, therefore the skip news label has to stay)
Moved the changes to PCbuild to the respective implementation commit ("Implement unparsing...")

This is ready for another review pass, @serhiy-storchaka. The only bit left is f-strings which is going to be a bit tedious so I'm waiting with it after a new round of feedback :-)

ilevkivskyi · 2017-11-22T15:48:03Z

How, do we organize the updates to typing.get_type_hints() to work with "doubly quoted" strings? I mean this should still work with the __future__ import:

def f() -> List['int']:
    ...

assert get_type_hints(f)['return'] == List[int]

I suppose this can be part of the same PR, since this is not necessary in the backported version on PyPI. Also my updates to typing following PEP 560 should not have merge conflicts.

ambv · 2017-11-22T17:14:52Z

@ilevkivskyi, I want to fix get_type_hints() separately since there's really no reason why accepting "List['int']" shouldn't be supported even today. Same with fixing the self-class reference as you suggested on python-dev (I think I'd do it with a ChainMap though), fixing the forward ref cache conflicts, etc.

ilevkivskyi · 2017-11-22T17:44:00Z

@ambv OK, I am fine with this as well.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-22T19:32:23Z

It will take a time for making a review of such large change. But one comment I can say now.

The unparser adds parenthesis for grouping subexpression. They are added even if not strictly needed, e.g. in a + (b * (c ** d)). The problem is not that redundant parenthesis makes an expression less readable. The problem is that they increase the stack consumption when parse the expression again. It is possible that the original expression can be parsed, but parsing the unparsed expression will fail or even crash.

I already encountered with similar problem when worked on the parser of plural form expressions in gettext.py. A C-like syntax is parsed and converted to Python syntax, and the result is evaluated. I minimized the use of parenthesis. If the subexpression operator has higher priority than the operator of the outer expression, parenthesis are not added.

This is not a blocker, and we can solve this problem later, but you can think about this while I'm making a review.

gvanrossum · 2017-11-22T19:37:28Z

Good observation. Also, mypy doesn't like redundant parentheses in type expressions. (Though it won't ever encounter these, since it parses the source, so maybe it doesn't matter.)

…

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Serhiy Storchaka ***@***.*** > wrote: It will take a time for making a review of such large change. But one comment I can say now. The unparser adds parenthesis for grouping subexpression. They are added even if not strictly needed, e.g. in a + (b * (c ** d)). The problem is not that redundant parenthesis makes an expression less readable. The problem is that they increase the stack consumption when parse the expression again. It is possible that the original expression can be parsed, but parsing the unparsed expression will fail or even crash. I already encountered with similar problem when worked on the parser of plural form expressions in gettext.py. A C-like syntax is parsed and converted to Python syntax, and the result is evaluated. I minimized the use of parenthesis. If the subexpression operator has higher priority than the operator of the outer expression, parenthesis are not added. This is not a blocker, and we can solve this problem later, but you can think about this while I'm making a review. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4390 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACwrMqGgQ0gZQAtXZIJpySJuO8Q7_UV0ks5s5HbagaJpZM4Qco6U> .

-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

ambv · 2017-11-23T08:25:46Z

ast_unparse.c is a close translation of the relevant parts of Tools/unparse.py. I didn't want to create an entire new thing from scratch as I'd miss edge cases that way for sure. Tools/unparse.py uses parens liberally as this is the simplest way to ensure the order of operations is preserved. To know if it's safe to omit a paren, a sub-expression would need to know where it's being emitted (e.g. the super-expression). That's way more complicated than what is already done. So, Tools/unparse.py makes no effort to omit parens when they aren't needed. This, as Guido points out, produces types that mypy is unable to parse (like "Dict[(str, int)]"). That won't fly for us so my C implementation allows for omitting parens under certain circumstances already (like the tuple index in the previous example). There are many tests around this. The goal was to not put any spurious parens in typical expressions used in typing. I didn't focus on minimizing parens in expressions which aren't valid types per PEP 484. Two enhancements that are definitely possible: - math operation ordering; and - omitting comma-catching parens if there is no comma in the inner expression (like in comprehensions, dict literals, etc.) I'll look into this next week. I am worried that such cleanup effort is likely to lead to bugs (expressions that end up semantically different from their original form). A spurious pair of parens is way less harmful than that. Speaking of harm, Serhiy, do you have a legit example where we can get to a stack overflow due to spurious parens? While this is theoretically possible, I think we'd have to maliciously create an expression pathological enough to trigger this condition. Any other parse errors or crashes that spurious parens induce? Serhiy, also, thank you for spending your time on reviewing this. I appreciate it. Your first round of review was already super helpful! Let me know if I can do anything to make review easier for you.

…

-- Best regards, Łukasz Langa

On Nov 22, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Guido van Rossum ***@***.***> wrote: Good observation. Also, mypy doesn't like redundant parentheses in type expressions. (Though it won't ever encounter these, since it parses the source, so maybe it doesn't matter.) On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Serhiy Storchaka ***@***.*** > wrote: > It will take a time for making a review of such large change. But one > comment I can say now. > > The unparser adds parenthesis for grouping subexpression. They are added > even if not strictly needed, e.g. in a + (b * (c ** d)). The problem is > not that redundant parenthesis makes an expression less readable. The > problem is that they increase the stack consumption when parse the > expression again. It is possible that the original expression can be > parsed, but parsing the unparsed expression will fail or even crash. > > I already encountered with similar problem when worked on the parser of > plural form expressions in gettext.py. A C-like syntax is parsed and > converted to Python syntax, and the result is evaluated. I minimized the > use of parenthesis. If the subexpression operator has higher priority than > the operator of the outer expression, parenthesis are not added. > > This is not a blocker, and we can solve this problem later, but you can > think about this while I'm making a review. > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#4390 (comment)>, or mute > the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACwrMqGgQ0gZQAtXZIJpySJuO8Q7_UV0ks5s5HbagaJpZM4Qco6U> > . > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-23T09:07:09Z

serhiy-storchaka commented

Nov 23, 2017

Yes, in case of gettext the one of purposes was to guard against a malicious input. In the case of annotations it is less likely. The other purpose -- speeding up the compilation.

This problem can be solved by assigning the numerical priority level to expressions and omitting parenthesis only if the current priority level is higher then the level of a super-expression (the sub-expression rather of a super-expression is responsible for adding parenthesis).

I have yet two questions.

Is the performance important here (I afraid yes)? The Python implementation would be simpler and more reliable. But much slower.
Do we need to support the full Python expression syntax? In particular arithmetic operations. Or it would be enough to support only the small subset used in type annotations? Names, attributes, indexing, tuples, what more?

gvanrossum · 2017-11-23T16:38:27Z

1. The string will be embedded in code objects. I don't want to have to call out to Python code when creating code objects. 2. Yes it should support anything that's currently legal in an expression, not just what we think are valid type expressions. Otherwise it's not backwards compatible. (Also, otherwise the whole thing about string literals was bogus.)

serhiy-storchaka

Added comments are mostly style comments (PEP 7) and suggestions for cleaning up the code, but there are several errors.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-26T13:57:44Z

Include/ast.h

@@ -15,6 +15,10 @@ PyAPI_FUNC(mod_ty) PyAST_FromNodeObject(
    PyCompilerFlags *flags,
    PyObject *filename,
    PyArena *arena);
+PyAPI_FUNC(PyObject *) PyAST_UnicodeFromAstExpr(


For uniformity with other names it would be better to name this function like PyAST_AsUnicode.

And I think it would be better to make it private and don't include in a limited API for now.

Actually, since this functions supports only AST corresponding to expressions, PyAST_AsUnicode is not a good name. Maybe just add an underscore to PyAST_UnicodeFromAstExpr? Or _PyAST_ExprAsUnicode?

OK, I like _PyAST_ExprAsUnicode.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-26T14:02:05Z

Include/code.h

-    int co_nlocals;		/* #local variables */
-    int co_stacksize;		/* #entries needed for evaluation stack */
-    int co_flags;		/* CO_..., see below */
+    int co_argcount;            /* #arguments, except *args */


Are all these differences just differences between tabs and spaces? It would be better to make this in a separate commit, and left only related changes.

I did make this a separate commit. As I commented on it, it's only to make "patchcheck" happy.

This already was done in #4583. You need just merge with master.

With your changes from bpo-32150 this is no longer necessary :-)

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-26T14:11:35Z

Lib/test/test_future.py

+    template = dedent(
+        """
+        from __future__ import annotations
+        def f() -> {ann}:


Should we test also an argument's annotation?

That's the same code but sure, I can add tests with that, too.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-26T14:13:42Z

PCbuild/pythoncore.vcxproj

@@ -357,6 +357,7 @@
    <ClCompile Include="..\Python\_warnings.c" />
    <ClCompile Include="..\Python\asdl.c" />
    <ClCompile Include="..\Python\ast.c" />
+    <ClCompile Include="..\Python\ast_unparse.c" />


Update also PCbuild/pythoncore.vcxproj.filters

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-26T14:14:37Z

Python/compile.c

+static int
+compiler_visit_annexpr(struct compiler *c, expr_ty annotation)
+{
+    static PyObject *ann_as_str;


Why static?

A left-over from something else I tried before. Removed.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-26T23:50:42Z

Python/ast_unparse.c

+    if (ret == -1)
+        return ret;
+
+    if (e->v.Yield.value)


The opening branch should be at the end of the same line as a condition (unless a condition is a multiline). PEP 7.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-26T23:52:15Z

Python/ast_unparse.c

+    if (ret == -1)
+        return ret;
+
+    if (e->v.Yield.value)


Await. Move the opening brace.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-26T23:54:50Z

Python/ast_unparse.c

+}
+
+static int
+append_ast_str(_PyUnicodeWriter *writer, expr_ty e, bool omit_string_brackets)


According to the meaning of this function it would be better to name the parameter raw.

Function removed in "Strings are no longer treated special".

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-26T23:57:20Z

Python/ast_unparse.c

+    case Num_kind:
+        return append_repr(writer, e->v.Num.n);
+    case Str_kind:
+        return append_ast_str(writer, e, omit_string_brackets);


Constant_kind can be a string too.

Yes, however, this special handling of strings has since been dropped from the PEP, I'll remove it in the next commit.

Removed in "Strings are no longer treated special".

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-27T00:00:17Z

Python/ast_unparse.c

+    case Bytes_kind:
+        return append_repr(writer, e->v.Bytes.s);
+    case Ellipsis_kind:
+        return append_charp(writer, "...");


Constant_kind can be the Ellipsis too, in which case it outputs Ellipsis instead of ....

Well, yes, because apparently the user wrote "Ellipsis" and not "...". Do you think we should convert to "..." in this case, too?

FWIW:

>>> Ellipsis is ... True

so this looks relatively low-pri.

gvanrossum · 2017-11-27T19:36:14Z

The readability issue will occasionally come up when people are starting to debug annotations. There's also the hypothetical issue that if someone were to generate stub files based on these, the redundant parentheses may elicit complaints from either mypy or pytype, both of which employ a limited syntax for annotations. That said we can always improve this later, so prioritize as you see fit.

ambv · 2017-11-27T19:37:48Z

As I said in my comment on Nov 23rd, to the best of my knowledge, the current state of the diff already omits all cases of spurious parens that occur in valid type annotations.

serhiy-storchaka · 2017-11-27T20:12:33Z

Don't spend your time on fighting with the extra parens if this distracts you from more prioritized tasks. If you don't solve this problem in your PR I'm going to do this after its merging. I suppose this will not add too much complexity. Your code already avoid producing the extra parens in many cases. This is enough for the initial implementation.

Yet one consideration. Could it help if introduce macros like the VISIT macro in symtable.c and compile.c? They should call specified function with explicit and implicit arguments, check a result and return a failure if it is failed. Most functions could be just a short sequence of invocations of these macros. This technique is used in many places in CPython sources.

ambv · 2017-11-27T20:29:37Z

Could it help if introduce macros like the VISIT macro in symtable.c and compile.c?

I was thinking about this when I was originally writing this but wasn't sure if macros aren't reserved just for special usage so I avoided them. If you'd like, I can refactor the file to use a macro instead, you're right, that should shorten it quite a bit.

The string form is recovered by unparsing the AST.

This is required for PEP 563 and as such only implements a part of the unparsing process that covers expressions.

ambv · 2017-12-31T08:43:43Z

Alright, this is fully rebased without conflicts and all comments from previous code review are addressed. Things left to do:

remove special handling of strings
add support for f-strings
(maybe?) refactor using a VISIT-style macro

See: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0563/#passing-string-literals-in-annotations-verbatim-to-annotations

ambv · 2017-12-31T08:59:09Z

Special handling of strings removed. I plan to add the missing f-string support in the first week of January so that the implementation is hopefully mergeable in 3.7.0a4.

ambv · 2018-01-16T04:45:47Z

Alright, @serhiy-storchaka, this is complete now, including f-string support! I realize it's pretty last minute, sorry for that.

A piece of useless statistics: this pull request was implemented in full during intercontinental flights. There's something very tranquil about sitting in one place for 10+ hours with no distractions.

emilyemorehouse · 2018-01-25T22:14:00Z

Doc/whatsnew/3.7.rst

+    class B:
+        ...
+
+Since this change breaks compatibiltiy, the new behavior can be enabled


Small typo - compatibiltiy -> compatibility

Fixed, thanks!

1st1

Overall looks good. Code in Python/ast_unparse.c looks fine, I didn't see any refleaks or non-checked return values. I think we can go ahead with this one and merge it, we'll have plenty of time to catch any bugs during the beta/rc period.

bedevere-bot added the awaiting merge label Nov 14, 2017

the-knights-who-say-ni added the CLA signed label Nov 14, 2017

serhiy-storchaka reviewed Nov 14, 2017

View reviewed changes

ambv force-pushed the string_annotations branch from b49dfa1 to c56d5bd Compare November 18, 2017 22:48

ambv changed the title ~~[WIP] String annotations~~ String annotations [PEP 563] Nov 18, 2017

ambv self-assigned this Nov 18, 2017

ambv added the skip issue label Nov 18, 2017

ambv force-pushed the string_annotations branch from c56d5bd to 1e71626 Compare November 18, 2017 22:57

gvanrossum requested a review from a team as a code owner November 18, 2017 23:28

ambv added the skip news label Nov 18, 2017

ambv force-pushed the string_annotations branch from 4cdb25d to 98231af Compare November 20, 2017 19:39

ambv added skip news and removed skip news labels Nov 20, 2017

serhiy-storchaka reviewed Nov 27, 2017

View reviewed changes

ambv and others added 4 commits December 30, 2017 21:29

Document from __future__ import annotations (PEP 563)

1a87ea0

Plumbing for from __future__ import annotations (PEP 563)

863d3e9

The string form is recovered by unparsing the AST.

Implement unparsing the AST back to string form

bc3ad37

This is required for PEP 563 and as such only implements a part of the unparsing process that covers expressions.

Response to Serhiy's review

7f88115

ambv force-pushed the string_annotations branch from 98231af to 7f88115 Compare December 31, 2017 08:41

Strings are no longer treated special

08f8600

See: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0563/#passing-string-literals-in-annotations-verbatim-to-annotations

f-string support

de9e5b0

auvipy approved these changes Jan 23, 2018

View reviewed changes

bedevere-bot added awaiting core review and removed awaiting merge labels Jan 23, 2018

emilyemorehouse reviewed Jan 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

1st1 approved these changes Jan 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

bedevere-bot added awaiting merge and removed awaiting core review labels Jan 25, 2018

compatibility typo

26c028c

ambv merged commit 95e4d58 into python:master Jan 26, 2018

bedevere-bot removed the awaiting merge label Jan 26, 2018

ts826848 mentioned this pull request Nov 1, 2018

Code using postponed evaluation of annotations (PEP 563) is rejected with a SyntaxError Nuitka/Nuitka#188

Closed

zkrolikowski-vl mentioned this pull request Jan 25, 2021

Consider using typing extensions for older Python versions VirtusLab/pandas-stubs#7

Closed

guevara mentioned this pull request Jun 18, 2021

为什么 Python 的 Type Hint 没有流行起来 guevara/read-it-later#7969

Open

ambv deleted the string_annotations branch July 12, 2021 11:24

MikeWallis42 mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2023

fixes #141 developer typing for dbt_args astronomer/astronomer-cosmos#142

Closed

This comment was marked as spam.

Sign in to view

Uh oh!

String annotations [PEP 563] #4390

String annotations [PEP 563] #4390

Uh oh!

Conversation

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Hide comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.