Better match narrowing for type objects#20872
Merged
hauntsaninja merged 1 commit intopython:masterfrom Feb 26, 2026
Merged
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
hauntsaninja
force-pushed
the
narrow101
branch
from
48eea79 to
fb5a9b1
Compare
This is the more general fix I alluded to in python#20367 (comment)
hauntsaninja
force-pushed
the
narrow101
branch
from
fb5a9b1 to
6189128
Compare
Contributor
|
According to mypy_primer, this change doesn't affect type check results on a corpus of open source code. ✅ |
Collaborator
Author
|
Will merge this soon! |
JukkaL
approved these changes
Feb 26, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is the more general fix I alluded to in
#20367 (comment)
The tests I added do not yet have perfect behaviour, e.g. the type object unions should be allowed and should not have the branch marked as unreachable. I will open a PR for that next (it is easy, but the diff is thrashier so better for a separate PR)
Fixes #18470 , fixes comment in #17133 (comment)