-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
test_unbound_args: add a functionality to ignore specific methods #316
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
Open
arnaud-ma
wants to merge
6
commits into
JuliaTesting:master
Choose a base branch
from
arnaud-ma:ignore-keywords-unbounds-args
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+37
−1
Open
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a9f275a
add ignore keyword for specific methods in test_unbound_args
arnaud-ma cbe7926
rename 'ignore' keyword to 'exclude' in test_unbound_args to align wi…
arnaud-ma 549620e
handle the case of callable objects in test_unbound_args
arnaud-ma 35b2dc8
remove the test_unbound_args(unbounds) method
arnaud-ma f30844d
update the doc of test_unbound_args to align with test_ambiguities
arnaud-ma df69299
use exactly the same signature style as Julia to exclude methods in t…
arnaud-ma 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
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.
Hmm, I thinks this still isn't quite what we want here.
For custom structs, say
struct S end, there are both function signatures containingSandType{S}(which isn't even quitetypeof(S)), since the former is for callable objects and the latter for constructors.Furthermore, there are subtypes of
Function, that are not asingleton type of function xxx, e.g.Base.ComposedFunction.Maybe you have an idea that makes all of these cases work. If not, I think we just need the user to specify the exact signature, i.e.
foo(x::Int, y::Float64)as(typeof(foo), Int, Float64).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.
Ah, I understand now. Thank you very much for your patience. After some research, I can't find any way to be 100% sure that we are dealing with a "simple" method.
But specifying the exact signature requires some knowledge from the user. To help the user, I think adding what method.sig returns in the error message can be a good idea. For example from this:
Unbound type parameters detected: [1] f(x) where T @ Main.Foo ~/projets/forks/Aqua/Aqua.jl/a.jl:15 [2] (::Main.Foo.S{U})(::NTuple{N, T}) where {N, T, U} @ Main.Foo ~/projets/forks/Aqua/Aqua.jl/a.jl:8 [3] Main.Foo.S(::NTuple{N, T}) where {N, T} @ Main.Foo ~/projets/forks/Aqua/Aqua.jl/a.jl:11to this:
What do you think about that?
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.
I am not a fan of requiring 3x of vertical space. Instead, I think we could make a function public that returns the list of methods, so that a user can query this for the signature themselves. But I would put that to a follow-up PR.
For this PR, it would be great if you could do the small adaptions needed for this, and adapt the docstring as well.