-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.9k
Support TypedDicts with missing keys (total=False) #3558
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
20 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ccfc4ad
Basic support for TypedDicts with missing keys (total=False)
JukkaL 44f53a9
Support get(key, {}) and fix construction of partial typed dict
JukkaL 6bb872e
Fix subtyping of non-total typed dicts
JukkaL 4df39fc
Fix join with non-total typed dict
JukkaL 39f0d38
Fix meet with non-total typed dicts
JukkaL 7e042b8
Add serialization test case
JukkaL 981023a
Support TypedDict total keyword argument with class syntax
JukkaL 6223d2a
Attempt to fix Python 3.3
JukkaL 5ecafb2
Add minimal runtime `total` support to mypy_extensions
JukkaL 0d16271
Merge branch 'master' into typeddict-total
JukkaL 1c068e0
Fix tests on pre-3.6 Python and improve introspection
JukkaL 4429ce1
Fix lint
JukkaL 1c2d327
Merge branch 'master' into typeddict-total
JukkaL 5359a98
Fix problems caused by merge
JukkaL a09c5b9
Allow td['key'] even if td is not total
JukkaL 059bc21
Fix lint
JukkaL b47857e
Add test case
JukkaL 6b922b5
Merge branch 'master' into typeddict-total
JukkaL 31b6696
Address review feedback
JukkaL d32fd68
Update comment
JukkaL File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we have to special-case this? Assuming the value type is some TypedDict, and the default passed to get() is some dict literal, isn't the natural union type resulting from the two an appropriate TypedDict? Even if it isn't, shouldn't we use the value type as a context for inferring the type of the dict literal? ISTM that
d.get('x', {'y': 1})
ought to work too.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We special this so that the context will be a non-total TypedDict in case the default is
{}
. If we don't do that,{}
won't be accepted for total TypedDicts since it has missing keys (all keys are missing).Any subset of keys should work but this will be harder to implement and likely not very common, so I think it's okay to postpone it until later. I can create an issue to track that.