You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Semantically, the order of the arguments of a union type is insignificant. Union[int, str] and Union[str, int] refer to the same type. When we ask a typing.Union instance for its arguments, it is under no obligation to give them to us in the same order as was used to create the instance.
Our [Union marshmallow field], however, does attach significance to the order of the arguments. When de/serializing a value, it tries to do so using a field appropriate for each of the types in the union, in order. E.g. for a (dataclass) field with type Union[int str], we try to deserialize first as an int, falling back to str, only if the input can not be parsed as an integer.
So the whole design of our system for handling union fields is flawed.
Most of the time, it happens to work. Python's typing does have a type cache. When a generic alias (e.g. a Union) is instantiated, a previously created instance may be returned, if one has already been created with the same arguments.
The type cache system (currently) does not ignore argument order, a fact which mostly saves us:
Because the argument lists to the outer calls to Union are equal, we get the same cached instance back. One of the two results will have the "wrong" argument order.
Here's a simple script that exercises the problem.
fromtypingimportOptional, Unionfrommarshmallow_dataclassimportdataclass# Comment out the next line and the assert will pass, otherwise it will failOptional[Union[str, int]]
@dataclassclassTest:
x: Optional[Union[int, str]]
assertTest.Schema().load({"x": "42"}) ==Test(x=42)
The failure of the test in question (this time) was caused by the addition of an unrelated function annotation in pytest-mypy-plugins 1.11.0.
(The annotation involves Optional[Union[str, int]]. When our test constructs an Optional[Union[int, str]] we get the cached first instance that has the arguments in the other order.)
Semantically, the order of the arguments of a union type is insignificant.
Union[int, str]
andUnion[str, int]
refer to the same type. When we ask atyping.Union
instance for its arguments, it is under no obligation to give them to us in the same order as was used to create the instance.Our [
Union
marshmallow field], however, does attach significance to the order of the arguments. When de/serializing a value, it tries to do so using a field appropriate for each of the types in the union, in order. E.g. for a (dataclass) field with typeUnion[int str]
, we try to deserialize first as anint
, falling back tostr
, only if the input can not be parsed as an integer.So the whole design of our system for handling union fields is flawed.
Most of the time, it happens to work. Python's typing does have a type cache. When a generic alias (e.g. a
Union
) is instantiated, a previously created instance may be returned, if one has already been created with the same arguments.The type cache system (currently) does not ignore argument order, a fact which mostly saves us:
Equality comparison between Unions, however, does ignore the argument order:
When arguments to a union type are themselves unions, this can start to cause trouble.
Because the argument lists to the outer calls to
Union
are equal, we get the same cached instance back. One of the two results will have the "wrong" argument order.Here's a simple script that exercises the problem.
The failure of the test in question (this time) was caused by the addition of an unrelated function annotation in
pytest-mypy-plugins
1.11.0.(The annotation involves
Optional[Union[str, int]]
. When our test constructs anOptional[Union[int, str]]
we get the cached first instance that has the arguments in the other order.)Related
This issue surfaced and was discussed in PR #246.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: