-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 358
Correct type handling for bitwise variable access #663
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
79f8bf8
Correct type handling in decode_bits() and encode_bits().
acolomb a0ffffb
Add unit tests involving sparse bit offset enumerations.
acolomb dcf7bf4
Fix unintended bit overwriting with sparse bit offsets.
acolomb 5587d9a
Correct type annotations for class Bits.
acolomb 2728033
Test non-string keys for bit access.
acolomb 3535ca6
Fix slice-based access without step, useful exception without stop.
acolomb 2a42b4d
fix slice without start, cover in test
acolomb 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
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.
As I learned like five minutes ago, it seems that -O or -OO flags (mean running python in optimized mode) will disable assertions and thus it is always better to use if / raise. Personally I like the inline assertions a lot and use them quite often. Also libs like pydantic use them in business logic. AI complains you should only use assertions in tests and otherwise raise an appropriate exception (probably TypeError).
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.
Thanks for the pointer, I didn't know either how easy it is to skip them.
The real question here is what API guarantees we want to give. Bitwise access for a non-integer object is a programming error. Catching that early and reporting in a meaningful way is important during development (of the application I mean, not the library). But once the application straightens out its use of objects and the corresponding types, I see nothing wrong with skipping this check for performance, if optimization is requested by the user. There will be an exception at some point, but disabling assertions on unverified code is basically asking for less useful error diagnostics.