Repository navigation
Adding type stubs #448
Description
Activity
Would you accept a PR adding stub files to the package?
I expect it will be very complex types and very low benefit for users, because msgpack can pack/unpack various types. I don't want to maintain it.
But if it is simple and very useful, I will consider it.
I ended up creating a separate type stub package: https://github.com/sbdchd/msgpack-types
If you aren't interested in have the types in the package itself, would you be okay with me adding them to the type shed?
Reacted by Emi, Evgeny Markov, Shahriar Heidrich, earonesty, Allan Daemon and jdhaoWell, I know for a fact that this is incorrect. Unpacking methods accept any object that implements the buffer protocol, so next to
bytesthere's alsobytearray,array,memoryview,numpy.ndarray, etc. There is a long-standing issue to add the ability to describe things as "buffer-like". It's an open issue, because buffers are very variable (writeable or not, data types, contiguous or non-contiguous, strided) and you need to describe them pretty accurately so your type annotation is actually useful.It's been almost 2 years but a comment on the linked issue says PEP 688 is here to save the day.
Was that the thing that we needed to unblock this?Well, for one a PEP needs to be accepted and implemented first to make a difference. As of now it's just a draft.
Ugh, sorry. Got so carried away by it that I didn't even check the PEP status.
Good news is that PEP 688 has been accepted. Bad news is that it'll be available in Python 3.12 at the earliest. Any earlier version would need a backport.
Reacted by Rodrigo Girão Serrão and Shahriar HeidrichGood news is that PEP 688 has been accepted. Bad news is that it'll be available in Python 3.12 at the earliest. Any earlier version would need a backport.
typing-extensions now supports
Bufferin the latest release, this is a common way to backport new typing PEPs to projects.Reacted by Shahriar Heidrich, Jack McIvor and Neil GirdharWould you accept a PR adding stub files to the package?
I expect it will be very complex types and very low benefit for users, because msgpack can pack/unpack various types. I don't want to maintain it.
But if it is simple and very useful, I will consider it.
The return value of msgpack.packb is bytes, which can reduce many warnings if it is type-annotated.
Reacted by Allan Daemon and Pea Soft
In the course of using msgpack in a project I've written some basic type stubs for the parts of the API I'm using.
I don't think it would be too hard to fill out the type stubs for the rest of the API.
Would you accept a PR adding stub files to the package?
Not sure if you have a preference on adding the types to the code itself or keeping them as separate stub files.
related: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0561/