Skip to content
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

Use a stricter configuration for basedpyright #332

Open
wants to merge 22 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ItsDrike
Copy link
Member

@ItsDrike ItsDrike commented Jul 12, 2024

A type checker that isn't strict is a bad type checker

This will likely break all PRs :P

  • This is the rare case where if you wish to bring your PR up to date with main, you might want to do a proper git merge as opposed to git rebase, so that you can bring your code up-to-date with these changes in that merge commit, rather than having to edit each commit in a rebase to be compatible. (Unless you only have 1-2 commits)

@ItsDrike ItsDrike added t: enhancement Improvement to an existing feature p: 2 - normal Normal priority a: internal Related to internal API of the project labels Jul 12, 2024
@ItsDrike ItsDrike force-pushed the strict-basedpyright branch 3 times, most recently from ccc29b0 to 45c4b47 Compare July 12, 2024 10:39
ItsDrike added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2024
ItsDrike added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2024
@ItsDrike ItsDrike force-pushed the strict-basedpyright branch 4 times, most recently from bfbdfb6 to 66c989c Compare July 12, 2024 13:37
@ItsDrike ItsDrike marked this pull request as ready for review July 13, 2024 10:06
@ItsDrike
Copy link
Member Author

ItsDrike commented Jul 13, 2024

Note: Unknown type reporting is currently disabled, there is a comment in pyproject.toml where these are disabled mentioning that we should consider enabling them. This will however not be done in this PR, instead, it will be covered by a future PR (#333), as I'm not entirely certain if enabling these is a good idea for us, they introduce a LOT of work, and while they can definitely be beneficial, I'm not sure it's worth the annoyance that they bring. I don't really wish to discuss the pros/cons of this in this PR, that discussion should take place in the PR that attempts to enable them.

Note 2: I've added some TODO comments into the code-base, which were not actually resolved here. That's because these TODOs are completely unrelated to this PR and are essentially just issues that I've noticed while working on this. These should be fixed in another PR(s) some time in the future.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
a: internal Related to internal API of the project p: 2 - normal Normal priority t: enhancement Improvement to an existing feature
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant