Rule for missing PEP 698 @override decorators?

[guillp]

An idea for a new rule: checking that methods in subclasses that override methods from the parent are decorated with @override.
This decorator is defined in PEP 698 and is meant to help both linters and developpers to recognize methods that are overriding methods from a parent class.

Example:

class A:
    def foo(self) -> None:
        print("foo from class A!")

class B(A):
    def foo(self) -> None:
        print("foo from class B!")

A rule would detect that the @override decorator is missing on B.foo() since it overrides A.foo().

Note that until python 3.12, override is only available from typing-extensions.

[zanieb]

TIL!

This sounds good to me as a great Python 3.12 milestone although I do not think it should be enabled by default.

[charliermarsh]

The challenge here is that we won’t be able to enforce this except for cases in which the parent class and subclass are defined in the same file (until we have multi-file analysis).

[zanieb]

Great point, it may not be worth prioritizing until then since there will be many false negatives

[JonathanPlasse]

There is also the inverse problem of having @override on a class without bases, or @overload on a function without the function without @overload.

[aaronsteers]

I found this thread while looking for the same. Are there any other linters that currently support this?

Asked also here:

• Docs request: IDE linting guidance mkorpela/overrides#120