Skip to content

Conversation

@jacobtylerwalls
Copy link
Contributor

@jacobtylerwallsjacobtylerwalls commented Apr 10, 2023

gh-87106
Closes#87106

If a function signature has a variadic keyword argument (like **kwargs), then providing a keyword with the same name as a positional-only argument will still succeed, and become available on kwargs.

Before
inspect.signature(f).bind(pos_only='val') might either:

  • raise TypeError unnecessarily if the positional-only arg had a default
  • raise TypeError with a different flavor of error message than runtime (runtime mentions the missing positional arg, but bind() mentioned the name collision, which wasn't the problem)

Now
These are fixed.

Prior related work
#16800

Copy link
Member

@sobolevnsobolevn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@jacobtylerwalls
Copy link
ContributorAuthor

👋 @sobolevn would you be interested to take another look?

Copy link
Member

@sobolevnsobolevn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with the fix in general. However, there are still some things to polish and improve :)

Thanks a lot for your work!

@jacobtylerwalls
Copy link
ContributorAuthor

jacobtylerwalls commented May 5, 2024

Thanks for your suggestions, @sobolevn. Should I move some of the new cases to test_signature_bind_posonly_kwargs()?

Copy link
Member

@sobolevnsobolevn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@serhiy-storchaka do you have any additional feedback?

Copy link
Member

@serhiy-storchakaserhiy-storchaka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

@serhiy-storchakaserhiy-storchaka merged commit 9c15202 into python:mainMay 13, 2024
@serhiy-storchakaserhiy-storchaka added needs backport to 3.12 only security fixes needs backport to 3.13 bugs and security fixes labels May 13, 2024
@miss-islington-app
Copy link

Thanks @jacobtylerwalls for the PR, and @serhiy-storchaka for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.12.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

@miss-islington-app
Copy link

Thanks @jacobtylerwalls for the PR, and @serhiy-storchaka for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request May 13, 2024
…nly arguments with **kwargs (pythonGH-103404) (cherry picked from commit 9c15202) Co-authored-by: Jacob Walls <jacobtylerwalls@gmail.com>
miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request May 13, 2024
…nly arguments with **kwargs (pythonGH-103404) (cherry picked from commit 9c15202) Co-authored-by: Jacob Walls <jacobtylerwalls@gmail.com>
@bedevere-app
Copy link

GH-118984 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch.

@bedevere-appbedevere-appbot removed the needs backport to 3.12 only security fixes label May 13, 2024
@bedevere-app
Copy link

GH-118985 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch.

@bedevere-appbedevere-appbot removed the needs backport to 3.13 bugs and security fixes label May 13, 2024
serhiy-storchaka pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 13, 2024
…only arguments with **kwargs (GH-103404) (GH-118984) (cherry picked from commit 9c15202) Co-authored-by: Jacob Walls <jacobtylerwalls@gmail.com>
serhiy-storchaka pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 13, 2024
…only arguments with **kwargs (GH-103404) (#118985) (cherry picked from commit 9c15202) Co-authored-by: Jacob Walls <jacobtylerwalls@gmail.com>
@JelleZijlstraJelleZijlstra mentioned this pull request May 28, 2024
estyxx pushed a commit to estyxx/cpython that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024
@hoodmanehoodmane mentioned this pull request Nov 6, 2024
6 tasks
@jacobtylerwallsjacobtylerwalls deleted the issue-87106 branch February 15, 2025 23:42
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Incorrect behavior of inspect.signature(f).bind

4 participants

@jacobtylerwalls@serhiy-storchaka@sobolevn@bedevere-bot