E1101 false positive with overridden properties

[SeanDS]

Steps to reproduce

The following example of property overriding results in the pylint warning E1101:Method 'some_property' has no 'getter' member. The problem seems to be that pylint doesn't realise that @property in the parent class is implicitly the getter referenced in the child class.

class Parent(object):
    @property
    def some_property(self):
        return "parent property"

class Child(Parent):
    @Parent.some_property.getter
    def some_property(self):
        return "child property"

if __name__ == "__main__":
    p = Parent()
    print(p.some_property)
    c = Child()
    print(c.some_property)

Current behavior

Pylint warns E1101:Method 'some_property' has no 'getter' member.

Expected behavior

Pylint should realise that @Parent.some_property.getter is equivalent to the parent's some_property property.

pylint --version output

No config file found, using default configuration
pylint 1.8.2, 
astroid 1.6.1
Python 3.6.4 |Anaconda, Inc.| (default, Jan 16 2018, 18:10:19) 
[GCC 7.2.0]

[PCManticore]

This is an incredible unimportant edge case. I don't even understand what this code is supposed to be doing.

[SeanDS]

The property in the subclass overrides the behaviour of the property in the parent class. I'm not sure why you think this is unimportant - isn't this a standard technique in object oriented Python?

[PCManticore]

Why don't you just redefine the property in the child class, what does the "overriding" brings in this case different than doing:

class Parent(object):
    @property
    def some_property(self):
        return "parent property"

class Child(Parent):
   @property
    def some_property(self):
        return "child property"

if __name__ == "__main__":
    p = Parent()
    print(p.some_property)
    c = Child()
    print(c.some_property)

Even if this pattern is useful with regards with setters, it still feels to be an antipattern and might even trip anyone reading this code without context.

[SeanDS]

Hmm, I wasn't aware you could just redefine the property. Since that's the case, I think I agree with you. Thanks :-)