test: annotate the merge enrichers fixture so pyrefly indexes its fields - #56
Merged
Merged
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
pyrefly inferred the
enrichersliteral intest_published_upgrade_keeps_version_metadata_coherentas a list oftuple[str, dict[str, Collection[str]]], soenrichers[1][1]["fields"]["author"]read as indexing astr(bad-indexat tests/test_regression.py:1584). Annotating it with the typemerge_with_policydeclares for that parameter,list[tuple[str, dict[str, Any]]], clears the only pyrefly error in the tree once the environment matches the locks.The local environment was also behind: it still had bibtexparser 1.4.4 while
requirements-*.lockpin 2.0.0, which produced two falsemissing-importerrors until it was reinstalled from the locks the way CI installs them.mypy citeforge/ main.py(the CI gate): no issues in 56 files