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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Add more precise inference for enum attributes #6867
Add more precise inference for enum attributes #6867
Changes from all commits
815a7e3
952d2d3
e14b629
fee2827
ac20624
b85ace4
a8d2139
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
I wonder if using a set would be a bit faster.
get_attribute_hook
is called very often so it might even make a small difference.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.
It turns out it is indeed faster, at least based on some microbenchmarking I did. I thought the list would be small enough that overhead would be about the same either way, but that was wrong.
(In retrospect, I guess doing on average 4 to 8
some_str.__eq__(...)
calls per containment check is always going to be noticeably more expensive then doing a__hash__(...)
followed by maybe an__eq__(...)
, at least in Python.)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.
I think that testing deserialization of the related types would also be an interesting test case. I wonder if one exists?
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.
Hmm, I'm not sure if we have one. Do you know which file I should add the test to? (I don't remember where we keep the deserialization tests.)