Experimenting: Annotated[Any, pybind11.CppType("cpp_namespace::UserType")]

[rwgk]

Description

For context see #4876 (comment) and surrounding comments.

Note: PR #5073 was split out from this PR and released with pybind11 v2.12.0

TODO:

• Wait for feedback: stubgen & pybind11: can we make them play nice(r)? python/mypy#16306

Suggested changelog entry:

[rwgk]

@sizmailov The idea here is to not knowingly generate docstrings that stubgen cannot possibly process correctly.

stubgen 1.5.1 does not process the Annotated[Any, "cpp_namespace::UserType"] as desired.

What do you think, is this a useful direction? Could stubgen be updated to process Annotated as desired?

[rwgk]

Some new information:

I ran global testing with this PR. Through that I discovered 3 .pyi files that look better, for example (manipulated because it's closed source):

- def foo(self, *args, **kwargs) -> Any: ...
+ def foo(self, value) -> None: ...

That makes me think stubgen already has some functionality for handling Annotated[Any, "cpp_namespace::UserType"], but it's not applied recursively.

[sizmailov]

What do you think, is this a useful direction? Could stubgen be updated to process Annotated as desired?

What would be the desired output? The following should be easily achievable:

defvalues(self) ->Iterator[Annotated[Any, "cpp_namespace::UserType"]]: ...

As a user of a python extension I would prefer to have this:

defvalues(self) ->Iterator[py_module.UserType]: ...

It's possible but requires information on mapping C++ types to Python, which is unavailable for stubgen. The only place that has this mapping is the binding code (e.g. pybind11_protobuf). Not sure how this can be extracted and passed to stubgen...

If I would go with Annotated I'd put some "label" around type string to leave no room for mistake (for 3rd-party tools that make use of annotations), e.g.:

defvalues(self) ->Iterator[Annotated[Any, Pybind11FromCppType("cpp_namespace::UserType")]]: ...

[rwgk]

def values(self) -> Iterator[Annotated[Any, Pybind11FromCppType("cpp_namespace::UserType")]]: ...

I'll try that, thanks!

What I'm aiming for here is a last-ditch effort to produce a docstring that does not trip up stubgen. The current behavior is to simply let it fall on the floor.

As a user of a python extension I would prefer to have this:
def values(self) -> Iterator[py_module.UserType]: ...

That only works for py::class_- or py::enum_-wrapped types. The implementation is here (right above the code this PR is changing):

• pybind11/include/pybind11/pybind11.h

  Lines 484 to 493 in 7969049

  	if (auto *tinfo = detail::get_type_info(*t)) {
  	handle th((PyObject *) tinfo->type);
  	signature += th.attr("__module__").cast<std::string>() + "."
  	+ th.attr("__qualname__").cast<std::string>();
  	} elseif (rec->is_new_style_constructor && arg_index == 0) {
  	// A new-style `__init__` takes `self` as `value_and_holder`.
  	// Rewrite it to the proper class type.
  	signature += rec->scope.attr("__module__").cast<std::string>() + "."
  	+ rec->scope.attr("__qualname__").cast<std::string>();
  	} else {

There is no existing mechanism for replacing the % placeholder (originating from here) at runtime with a fully-qualified Python name. Ideas that come to mind: maybe another registry; maybe a magic classmethod. But even if implemented, that can fail, too, so a robust fallback like what this PR is about will always have a value.

[rwgk]

I decided to go with

def values(self) -> Iterator[Annotated[Any, CppTypePybind11("cpp_namespace::UserType")]]: ...

For the 5 .pyi files that I hit on via global testing before, inserting CppTypePybind11() does not make a difference. I like the extra clarity though, therefore I initiated another global testing run with this updated PR.

[sizmailov]

Strictly speaking, we should always wrap C++ types with Annotated at this point.
Being a top-level non-template type is not enough to assume 1-to-1 C++-Python type name correspondence, although it is the case for (some) built-in types.

[sizmailov]

Adding the following to cast.h allows us to remove the above condition without turning all tests red.

template <>
structhandle_type_name<str> {
staticconstexprauto name = const_name("str");
};
template <>
structhandle_type_name<set> {
staticconstexprauto name = const_name("set");
};
template <>
structhandle_type_name<anyset> {
staticconstexprauto name = const_name("set");
};
template <>
structhandle_type_name<tuple> {
staticconstexprauto name = const_name("tuple");
};
template <>
structhandle_type_name<frozenset> {
staticconstexprauto name = const_name("frozenset");
};
template <>
structhandle_type_name<list> {
staticconstexprauto name = const_name("list");
};
template <>
structhandle_type_name<dict> {
staticconstexprauto name = const_name("dict");
};
template <>
structhandle_type_name<object> {
staticconstexprauto name = const_name("object");
};

The only two failures probably indicate the error in tests themselves:

Pytest errors

====================================================================================================================== FAILURES ======================================================================================================================
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ test_signature ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
doc = <conftest.SanitizedString object at 0x7fafa7b3f8e0>
def test_signature(doc):
> assert (
doc(m.create_rec_nested)
== "create_rec_nested(arg0: int) -> numpy.ndarray[NestedStruct]"
)
E assert --- actual / +++ expected
E - create_rec_nested(arg0: int) -> numpy.ndarray[Annotated[Any, CppTypePybind11("NestedStruct")]]
E ? -------------------------------- -- -
E + create_rec_nested(arg0: int) -> numpy.ndarray[NestedStruct]
doc = <conftest.SanitizedString object at 0x7fafa7b3f8e0>
../../tests/test_numpy_dtypes.py:344: AssertionError
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ test_set ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
capture = <conftest.Capture object at 0x7fafa82995a0>, doc = <conftest.SanitizedString object at 0x7fafa82991b0>
def test_set(capture, doc):
s = m.get_set()
assert isinstance(s, set)
assert s == {"key1", "key2", "key3"}
s.add("key4")
with capture:
m.print_anyset(s)
assert (
capture.unordered
== """
key: key1
key: key2
key: key3
key: key4
"""
)
m.set_add(s, "key5")
assert m.anyset_size(s) == 5
m.set_clear(s)
assert m.anyset_empty(s)
assert not m.anyset_contains(set(), 42)
assert m.anyset_contains({42}, 42)
assert m.anyset_contains({"foo"}, "foo")
assert doc(m.get_set) == "get_set() -> set"
> assert doc(m.print_anyset) == "print_anyset(arg0: anyset) -> None"
E assert --- actual / +++ expected
E - print_anyset(arg0: set) -> None
E + print_anyset(arg0: anyset) -> None
E ? +++
capture = <conftest.Capture object at 0x7fafa82995a0>
doc = <conftest.SanitizedString object at 0x7fafa82991b0>
s = set()

[rwgk]

Sorry I didn't point out before, I got the same result already, it's in a commit here: 76b4a34

The only remaining errors are related to numpy NestedStruct. I tried to pin-point where the % originates, but I gave up after looking for ~5 minutes, reverted the commit, and then tried the cpp_name_needs_typing_annotated() heuristic instead to see how far we get with that.

I agree what you suggest here is best, but someone needs to figure out how to deal with the failing test, and then we have to decide if we need to roll out the behavior change in stages, maybe opt-in first in one release, then opt-out in the next.

[sizmailov]

Oh, right. You already tried that. I should have noticed.

I think we should apply the following diff to tests.

• NestedStruct doesn't have a descriptive python counterpart, the CppTypePybind11("NestedType") is the best we can do.
• There is no such thing as anyset in python.

template <>
structhandle_type_name<anyset> {
staticconstexprauto name = const_name("set");
};

This should resolve the troubles with broken tests.

diff

diff --git a/tests/test_numpy_dtypes.py b/tests/test_numpy_dtypes.py
index d10457ee..2fc3771c 100644
--- a/tests/test_numpy_dtypes.py+++ b/tests/test_numpy_dtypes.py@@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ def test_complex_array():
def test_signature(doc):
assert (
doc(m.create_rec_nested)
- == "create_rec_nested(arg0: int) -> numpy.ndarray[NestedStruct]"+ == "create_rec_nested(arg0: int) -> numpy.ndarray[Annotated[Any, CppTypePybind11(\"NestedStruct\")]]"
)
diff --git a/tests/test_pytypes.py b/tests/test_pytypes.py
index 2b202731..2824d29f 100644
--- a/tests/test_pytypes.py+++ b/tests/test_pytypes.py@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ def test_set(capture, doc):
assert m.anyset_contains({"foo"}, "foo")
assert doc(m.get_set) == "get_set() -> set"
- assert doc(m.print_anyset) == "print_anyset(arg0: anyset) -> None"+ assert doc(m.print_anyset) == "print_anyset(arg0: set) -> None"

[rwgk]

NestedStruct doesn't have a descriptive python counterpart

Nice, thanks! I didn't know / wasn't sure before. I'm glad I gave up before, finding out the hard way. :-)

There is no such thing as anyset in python.

Of course! :-) Thanks for catching that as well, I was just going through with rushed lawnmower mentality.

Please take another look, the cpp_name_needs_typing_annotated() heuristic is gone, all tests pass (locally at least).

[rwgk]

Another data point, result from globally testing this PR @ commit 272152e, which inserts CppTypePybind11() like this:

Annotated[Any, CppTypePybind11("cpp_namespace::UserType")]

There is only 1 new test failure, in tensorflow, a comparison with a golden file. That should be easy to deal with.

[rwgk]

@sizmailov do have connections to the mypy stubgen owners?

I feel it would be ideal to get their input before we make a move here. Concrete questions:

• What's their overall high-level reaction to using Annotated[Any, CppTypePybind11("cpp_namespace::UserType")] (or similar)?

It seems like mypy does handle outer-level Annotated, but not nested ones, e.g.

Iterator[str, Annotated[Any, CppTypePybind11("cpp_namespace::UserType")]]

• What are the chances that mypy will be changed to support such nested Annotated?

[sizmailov]

According to https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/set.htmlanyset is an alias for "set or fronzenset".

The contexts where rendering it as set | frozenset might lead to trouble are pretty exotic, I think it's ok to render as union type:

Suggested change

	static constexpr auto name=const_name("set");
	static constexpr auto name=const_name("set | frozenset");

[rwgk]

Done: ace70b0

I see Union[...] is used in multiple places.

Could it be better to use Union[set, frozenset] for self-consistency?

[sizmailov]

Yes, let's use Union for consistency

[rwgk]

Done: 7c8991a

[rwgk]

@sizmailov do have connections to the mypy stubgen owners?

I went ahead and created python/mypy#16306

[sizmailov]

type, exception, memoryview and bytearray also miss the handle_type_name.

Not sure about dtype, module_, generic_type and exception, since they are not in pytypes.h.

The rest seems to be properly handled.

grep -Poh 'class \w+ : public object ' include/pybind11/*.h

class dtype : public object class module_ : public object class generic_type : public object class exception : public object class iterator : public object class type : public object class iterable : public object class str : public object class bytes : public object class bytearray : public object class none : public object class ellipsis : public object class bool_ : public object class int_ : public object class float_ : public object class weakref : public object class slice : public object class capsule : public object class tuple : public object class dict : public object class sequence : public object class list : public object class anyset : public object class function : public object class staticmethod : public object class buffer : public object class memoryview : public object 

[rwgk]

@sizmailov I'm interested in your opinion regarding d14d91e, could you please take a look?

The main idea is to remove the handle_type_name default implementation, to enforce that all types are explicitly specialized, to guard against oversights.

That generates the question: What do we actually want in the added specializations? — I'm not sure, any advice is appreciated.

[rwgk]

Logging the results of a simple experiment: Google global testing with the current version of this PR:

(Internal test ID: OCL:593010609:BASE:593028799:1703228284011:fdcd5c9a)

22 build failures (22 unique)

$ grep 'cast.h:1208:32' * | cut -d"'" -f2 | sort | uniq -c
6 pybind11::detail::handle_type_name<jax::(anonymous namespace)::PjitFunction::pyobject>
6 pybind11::detail::handle_type_name<jax::PmapFunction::pyobject>
6 pybind11::detail::handle_type_name<pybind11::enum_<xla::OpSharding_ShardGroupType>>
6 pybind11::detail::handle_type_name<pybind11::enum_<xla::OpSharding_Type>>
45 pybind11::detail::handle_type_name<xla::PyArray>

It would probably take a few hours of effort to get those fixed (by adding handle_type_name specializations).

It might be too disruptive to release pybind11 without the handle_type_name default implementation, at least without a transition plan (e.g. first a release with opt-in, later a release changing to opt-out).