Skip to content

handle type annotations in nested functions correctly#7072

Merged
youknowone merged 1 commit intoRustPython:mainfrom
elmjag:nested-funcs-annotations
Feb 10, 2026
Merged

handle type annotations in nested functions correctly#7072
youknowone merged 1 commit intoRustPython:mainfrom
elmjag:nested-funcs-annotations

Conversation

@elmjag
Copy link
Contributor

@elmjag elmjag commented Feb 10, 2026 •
edited by coderabbitai bot
Loading

For example in the following code:

def foo(x: int, y: float):
    def bar(q: int):
        return q
    pass

Make sure that foo type annotations are correctly propogated to it's __annotate__ and __annotations__ attributes.

With this chage, we'll get:

>>>>> foo.__annotations__
{'x': <class 'int'>, 'y': <class 'float'>}

Previously annotations where 'lost', and we would get:

>>>>> foo.__annotations__
{}

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor
    • Improved internal handling of annotation scopes so annotations are preserved and restored more consistently around definition boundaries, reducing rare inconsistencies and improving overall stability and predictability.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 10, 2026 •
edited
Loading

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The SymbolTableBuilder::scan_statement handling for FunctionDef now saves/restores the current scope's annotation_block for Function and AsyncFunction in addition to Class and Module, extending annotation scope preservation to function definitions.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Annotation Block Handling
crates/codegen/src/symboltable.rs		 Adjusted the condition in the FunctionDef branch to include Function and AsyncFunction alongside Class and Module when deciding to save the current scope's annotation_block, ensuring annotation scopes are captured/restored around function definitions.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

🐰✍️ I hopped through scopes both near and far,
Saved annotations like a tiny star.
Functions now hold what they once forgot,
Restored with care — a neat little plot. 🥕

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1
❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Docstring Coverage ⚠️ Warning Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title directly relates to the main change: expanding annotation_block preservation to nested functions (Function/AsyncFunction) to correctly handle type annotations in nested functions.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing touches
  • 📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot reviewed Feb 10, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents 
In `@crates/codegen/src/symboltable.rs`:
- Around line 1137-1142: The matches expression that sets
should_save_annotation_block currently checks parent_scope_typ for
CompilerScope::Class, ::Module, and ::Function but omits
CompilerScope::AsyncFunction; update the matches to include
Some(CompilerScope::AsyncFunction) so async functions are treated the same as
normal functions when deciding to save/restore annotation blocks (referencing
the local variables should_save_annotation_block and parent_scope_typ in
symboltable.rs).

@elmjag
handle type annotations in nested functions correctly
2c83511 
For example in the following code:

    def foo(x: int, y: float):
        def bar(q: int):
            return q
        pass

Make sure that `foo` type annotations are correctly propogated to
it's `__annotate__` and `__annotations__` attributes.

With this chage, we'll get:

    >>>>> foo.__annotations__
    {'x': <class 'int'>, 'y': <class 'float'>}

Previously annotations where 'lost', and we would get:

    >>>>> foo.__annotations__
    {}
@elmjag elmjag force-pushed the nested-funcs-annotations branch from 890e8ed to 2c83511 Compare February 10, 2026 14:07
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 10, 2026

📦 Library Dependencies

The following Lib/ modules were modified. Here are their dependencies:

[ ] lib: cpython/Lib/typing.py
[ ] test: cpython/Lib/test/test_typing.py (TODO: 19)
[ ] test: cpython/Lib/test/test_type_aliases.py
[ ] test: cpython/Lib/test/test_type_annotations.py
[ ] test: cpython/Lib/test/test_type_params.py
[ ] test: cpython/Lib/test/test_genericalias.py (TODO: 3)

dependencies:

  • typing (native: _typing, collections.abc, sys)
    • collections (native: _weakref, itertools, sys)
    • types
    • abc, copyreg, functools, operator

dependent tests: (10 tests)

  • typing: test_annotationlib test_builtin test_enum test_fractions test_functools test_genericalias test_grammar test_isinstance test_types test_typing

Legend:

  • [+] path exists in CPython
  • [x] up-to-date, [ ] outdated

youknowone
youknowone approved these changes Feb 10, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@youknowone youknowone left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 Thank you!

@youknowone youknowone merged commit fde808e into RustPython:main Feb 10, 2026
13 of 14 checks passed
@elmjag elmjag deleted the nested-funcs-annotations branch February 12, 2026 13:46
@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Mar 2, 2026
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] left review comments

@youknowone youknowone youknowone approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@elmjag @youknowone