Skip to content

research: is it useful to test with more typecheckers and linters #743

@Josverl

Description

@Josverl

Based on the list on https://github.com/typeddjango/awesome-python-typing?tab=readme-ov-file#static-type-checkers

Which static typecheckers make sense to invest time on ?

  1. basedmypy - Based static typing with baseline functionality.

    🤔possibly interesting by replaces mypy - which is not desired

  2. mypy - Optional static typing (PEP 484).

    ✅Part of test suite

  3. pyanalyze - Extensible static analyzer and type checker.

    🚫requires being able to import the .py files , which does not work for MicroPython Code

  4. pycharm - IDE for Professional Developers.

    🐢 Does work in manual testing - but cannot be tested in isolation

  5. pylyzer - A fast static code analyzer & language server for Python, written in Rust.

    🚫 Currently does not support running against a set of files

  6. pyre - Performant type-checker.

    🤔no Windows option - could mainly test in CI

  7. pyright - Fast type checker meant for large Python source bases. It can run in a “watch” mode and performs fast incremental updates when files are modified.

    ✅Part of test suite

  8. pytype - Tool to check and infer types - without requiring type annotations.

    🎲No direct windows option - but possibly can be built 'ERROR: Could not build wheels for pytype - error: Microsoft Visual C++ 14.0 or greater is required.'.
    Not a simple issue to fix though : Please support Windows. google/pytype#1154

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    PyLancePyLance or PyRight relatedmypyTypecheck issue reported by mypypyrighta typecheck issue reported by pyright or pylance

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions