Skip to content

Add introspection information for builtins #63873

Closed

Description

@larryhastings
BPO 19674
Nosy @gvanrossum, @warsaw, @brettcannon, @birkenfeld, @ncoghlan, @larryhastings, @serhiy-storchaka
Files
  • larry.introspection.for.builtins.patch.1.txt: Rough patch with a first effort.
  • larry.introspection.for.builtins.patch.2.txt
  • larry.introspection.for.builtins.patch.3.txt
  • larry.introspection.for.builtins.patch.4.txt
  • Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.

    Show more details

    GitHub fields:

    assignee = 'https://github.com/larryhastings'
    closed_at = <Date 2013-11-23.23:39:10.883>
    created_at = <Date 2013-11-20.23:52:26.200>
    labels = ['interpreter-core', 'type-bug']
    title = 'Add introspection information for builtins'
    updated_at = <Date 2013-11-23.23:39:10.883>
    user = 'https://github.com/larryhastings'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2013-11-23.23:39:10.883>
    actor = 'larry'
    assignee = 'larry'
    closed = True
    closed_date = <Date 2013-11-23.23:39:10.883>
    closer = 'larry'
    components = ['Interpreter Core']
    creation = <Date 2013-11-20.23:52:26.200>
    creator = 'larry'
    dependencies = []
    files = ['32739', '32763', '32785', '32815']
    hgrepos = []
    issue_num = 19674
    keywords = []
    message_count = 16.0
    messages = ['203549', '203550', '203551', '203575', '203576', '203583', '203607', '203667', '203672', '203684', '203797', '203827', '203908', '204026', '204120', '204129']
    nosy_count = 8.0
    nosy_names = ['gvanrossum', 'barry', 'brett.cannon', 'georg.brandl', 'ncoghlan', 'larry', 'python-dev', 'serhiy.storchaka']
    pr_nums = []
    priority = 'normal'
    resolution = 'fixed'
    stage = 'resolved'
    status = 'closed'
    superseder = None
    type = 'behavior'
    url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue19674'
    versions = ['Python 3.4']

    Activity

    1. larryhastings commented on Nov 20, 2013

      @larryhastings
      ContributorAuthor

      Let's see if we can get introspection information for builtins using the Clinic for 3.4.

      Georg suggested part of the approach while we were hanging out in Tokyo. I'd considered it previously before but dispensed with the idea because it seemed too loopy. Actually it seems to work great.

      The approach:

      • Clinic generates an extra first line for the docstring, that looks like "def (...)\n". (Note: no function name!)

      • The PyCFunctionObject __doc__ getter detects this line and skips it if present.

      • Add a new getter to PyCFunctionObject, which I've called "__textsig__", that returns this first line if present in the docstring. (It skips the "def " at the front, and clips it at the newline.)

      • inspect now notices if it's passed in a PyCFunctionObject. If it gets one, it checks to see if it has a valid __textsig__. If it does, it parses it (using ast.parse) and produces a valid signature.

      Advantages of this approach:

      • It was easy to do and took very few lines of code.

      • For signatures that are impossible to convert to Clinic, we can
        write the metadata by hand.

      Disadvantages of this approach:

      • Uh, nothing, really!

      The next step is probably to convert pydoc to use inspect.signature instead of the manky old methods it currently uses. After that, clean up the patch, and add a unit test or two.

      What do you think?

    2. added
      interpreter-core(Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs)
      type-bugAn unexpected behavior, bug, or error
      on Nov 20, 2013
    3. larryhastings commented on Nov 20, 2013

      @larryhastings
      ContributorAuthor

      If you review, you can ignore the changes to the .c files, those only got touched because of the new autogenerated "def (" lines in the docstrings. No other changes there.

    4. larryhastings commented on Nov 21, 2013

      @larryhastings
      ContributorAuthor

      (Well, except for Object/methodobject.c.)

    5. gvanrossum commented on Nov 21, 2013

      @gvanrossum
      Member

      I think there's a similar but slightly different convention in Sphinx
      autodoc -- the first line of the docstring can be "name(...)" . Isn't that
      better than def?

    6. larryhastings commented on Nov 21, 2013

      @larryhastings
      ContributorAuthor

      I was deliberately trying to avoid something that a person might do by accident. Also, "def (" is consistently only five bytes, whereas "pterodactyl (" or whatever will often be much longer, in case static data size is a concern.

      But I could switch it to that if you think that's better. Certainly it's a tiny amount more readable.

      (I don't think this would make the docstrings compatible with sphinx autodoc though.)

    7. serhiy-storchaka commented on Nov 21, 2013

      @serhiy-storchaka
      Member

      Great! See also bpo-16842 and bpo-16638.

    8. ncoghlan commented on Nov 21, 2013

      @ncoghlan
      Contributor

      Sounds good to me (with either Larry's or Guido's spelling).

      We should ensure this still works with the config option that disables docstrings entirely.

    9. brettcannon commented on Nov 21, 2013

      @brettcannon
      Member

      For Nick: "still works" as in the metadata is still available without docstrings or "still works" as in it won't crash?

    10. larryhastings commented on Nov 21, 2013

      @larryhastings
      ContributorAuthor

      I changed it to "<callablename>(". Patch attached. Still works.

    11. ncoghlan commented on Nov 21, 2013

      @ncoghlan
      Contributor

      "still works" as in "doesn't crash and the docstrings are still missing to
      save memory".

    12. larryhastings commented on Nov 22, 2013

      @larryhastings
      ContributorAuthor

      Anybody have a better name for __textsig__ ?

    13. brettcannon commented on Nov 22, 2013

      @brettcannon
      Member

      __signature_text__? __textsignature__? No need to abbreviate that much since there is no built-in function equivalent and people are not expected to work with it.

    14. larryhastings commented on Nov 22, 2013

      @larryhastings
      ContributorAuthor

      I went with __text_signature__. I also did some more polishing, and added / fixed the unit tests, and even added a Misc/NEWS. Is it good enough to go in before the beta?

    15. ncoghlan commented on Nov 23, 2013

      @ncoghlan
      Contributor

      +1 from me (I see this as the key benefit of argument clinic).

      For 3.5, we can look at ducktyping on the attribute, but for now I think
      it's worth keeping that text format internal to CPython.

    16. larryhastings commented on Nov 23, 2013

      @larryhastings
      ContributorAuthor

      Fresh patch attached. pydoc now uses inspect.signature instead of inspect.getfullargspec to generate the arguments for the function, and supports builtins. That's everything :D

      Planning on checking this in pretty soon, to get it in for beta (which hopefully still gets tagged today).

    17. python-dev commented on Nov 23, 2013

      python-devmannequin
      Mannequin

      New changeset 78ec18f5cb45 by Larry Hastings in branch 'default':
      Issue bpo-19674: inspect.signature() now produces a correct signature
      http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/78ec18f5cb45

    18. transferred this issue fromon Apr 10, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

    Metadata

    Metadata

    Assignees

    Labels

    interpreter-core(Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs)type-bugAn unexpected behavior, bug, or error

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions