|
| 1 | +# DEP 1 - More accurate usage detection |
| 2 | +**Status**: Proposed |
| 3 | +**Type**: Feature |
| 4 | +**Created**: 2024-01-14 |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +## Motivation |
| 7 | +Usage detection can be more accurate. |
| 8 | +It is common in other unused code detection tools to simply construct |
| 9 | +sets of names used in definitions and names used in usage expressions. |
| 10 | +And reporting the names, which are in defined set, but not in usage one. |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +In larger projects cases when names overlap are quite common. In this example: |
| 13 | +``` |
| 14 | +class Foo: |
| 15 | + def validate(self): |
| 16 | + pass |
| 17 | +
|
| 18 | +class Bar: |
| 19 | + def validate(self): |
| 20 | + pass |
| 21 | +
|
| 22 | +Foo().validate() |
| 23 | +``` |
| 24 | +`validate` name would not be reported if this simple strategy is being used. |
| 25 | +However, it is possible to track the types of definitions and usages and |
| 26 | +more accurately identify the usages. This DEP 1 proposal specifies the strategy, |
| 27 | +which could be used to more accurately track the types of variables. |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | +## Scope construction for definitions: |
| 31 | +Dot-separated scope name is being used to identify a scope in each line. |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +``` |
| 34 | +# foo.py # foo |
| 35 | +class Bar: # foo.Bar |
| 36 | + def spam(): # foo.Bar.spam |
| 37 | + pass # foo.Bar.spam |
| 38 | +``` |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +If the `foo.py` file is not on the working path, then its scope is being prefixed with dot separated package names. |
| 41 | +For example, if the `foo.py` is in `ham.eggs` package, then the scope of `spam` method will be: |
| 42 | +`ham.eggs.foo.Bar.spam`. |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +## Matching defined type with a type in an expression |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +Lets say we have a `Bar` type definition and an expression which uses it: |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +``` |
| 50 | +# foo.py # SCOPE |
| 51 | +class Bar: # foo.Bar |
| 52 | + def spam(): # foo.Bar.spam |
| 53 | + pass # foo.Bar.spam |
| 54 | +Bar().spam() # foo, TYPE: Bar |
| 55 | +``` |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +On the expression line `Bar().spam()` the scope is `foo`, the identified type name |
| 58 | +is `Bar`. This type `Bar` will be used to search for a type definition (CodeItem instance) |
| 59 | +in a namespace `foo` and usages will be marked on it as well as usages of related attributes/methods |
| 60 | +will be associated with that type. |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +## Providing only a part of scope via options is fine |
| 64 | +All of these scopes will match the `spam` method: |
| 65 | + `ham.eggs.foo.Bar.spam` |
| 66 | + `foo.Bar.spam` |
| 67 | + `Bar.spam` |
| 68 | + `spam` |
| 69 | + |
| 70 | +The less specific the scope is the more cases it will match, |
| 71 | +i.e. `spam` scope would also match a variable named `spam` in any scope as well. |
| 72 | +In some sence scopes like `spam`` have wild cards `*.spam` matching any scope prefixes. |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | + |
| 75 | +## Identifying types of scope parts |
| 76 | +When creating the scope parts, each part could also have the type |
| 77 | +(e.g. pacakge, module, class, method, variable) associated with it. |
| 78 | +When a usage expression is being detected its type could be searched by |
| 79 | +using types of scope part, instead of simply comparing scope strings. |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +For example this code snippet contains two different objects, which could be |
| 82 | +matched using a generic `foo.bar` scope: |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +``` |
| 85 | +def foo: |
| 86 | + bar = 1 |
| 87 | +
|
| 88 | +class foo: |
| 89 | + def bar(self): |
| 90 | + pass |
| 91 | +
|
| 92 | +foo().bar = 1 |
| 93 | +``` |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +Deadcode could internally track the type of each scope part and when an expression |
| 96 | +is being detected, the defined type could be searched by taking the types of scope parts, not only |
| 97 | +the scope string. For example, using a special notation like `>foo%bar` and `#foo>bar` |
| 98 | +for scopes could be used for the above example to accurately identify definitions. |
| 99 | + |
| 100 | +User could also provide precise types of scope parts by using a different separator instead of `.`. |
| 101 | +These separators could be used for scope part separation: |
| 102 | +- `.` - means any type of scope |
| 103 | +- `/` - package or module scope |
| 104 | +- `#` - class scope |
| 105 | +- `>` - function or method scope |
| 106 | +- `%` - variable or variable attribute |
| 107 | + |
| 108 | +For example, user could provide this `ham.eggs.foo.Bar.spam` path as well as a more specific one |
| 109 | +`ham/eggs/foo#Bar>spam` to exactly match the types of scope parts. |
| 110 | + |
| 111 | + |
| 112 | +## Type tracking for method arguments and returned values |
| 113 | + |
| 114 | +### Tracking type of arguments |
| 115 | +When argument is being passed into a function/method the type remains the same, but the |
| 116 | +variable name might change, or it might be put into a container like tuple or dictionary. |
| 117 | +Deadcode will attempt to track the types of function/method parameters, however in some cases |
| 118 | +the type will be lost and deadcode will fallback to a generic name matching strategy. |
| 119 | + |
| 120 | +In this example: |
| 121 | + |
| 122 | +``` |
| 123 | +class Foo: |
| 124 | + def bar(self): |
| 125 | + pass |
| 126 | +
|
| 127 | +def eggs(ham): |
| 128 | + ham.bar() |
| 129 | +
|
| 130 | +spam = Foo() |
| 131 | +eggs(spam) |
| 132 | +``` |
| 133 | + |
| 134 | +Deadcode will be able to accurately detect that type of `ham` is `Foo`. |
| 135 | + |
| 136 | + |
| 137 | +### Tracking types of returned values |
| 138 | +It might be hard to track exact types of variables, for example: |
| 139 | + |
| 140 | +``` |
| 141 | +clas Eggs: |
| 142 | + pass |
| 143 | +
|
| 144 | +class Bar: |
| 145 | + def spam(): |
| 146 | + return Eggs() |
| 147 | +
|
| 148 | +variable = Bar().spam() |
| 149 | +print(variable) |
| 150 | +``` |
| 151 | + |
| 152 | +Parsing the returned type of `Bar.spam` is complicated. |
| 153 | +In some cases, the returned type might only be determined dynamically during a runtime |
| 154 | +and it might depend on method's implementation details. |
| 155 | +Hence, in some cases the types won't be identified |
| 156 | +due to runtime not being available during static code analysis. |
| 157 | + |
| 158 | +The Deadcode policy on this is that when a type is being lost due to inability |
| 159 | +to accurately identify it. |
| 160 | + |
| 161 | +In such cases the Deadcode will loose a way to accurately identify the type of variables/attributes. |
| 162 | +Hence a generic name matching will be used instead in these cases, just like vulture does. |
| 163 | +If more than one definition with the same name is detected the warning should be issues |
| 164 | +(if enough verbosity is enabled). |
| 165 | +In addition, type hints could be used to try to detect the type more easily in such cases. |
0 commit comments