What is the proper way to annotate a function argument that expects a class object instead of an instance of that class?
In the example below, some_class
argument is expected to be a type instance (which is a class), but the problem here is that type
is too broad:
def construct(some_class: type, related_data:Dict[str, Any]) -> Any:
...
In the case where some_class
expects a specific set of types objects, using type
does not help at all. The typing
module might be in need of a Class generic that does this:
def construct(some_class: Class[Union[Foo, Bar, Baz]], related_data:Dict[str, Any]) -> Union[Foo, Bar, Baz]:
...
In the example above, some_class
is the Foo
, Bar
or Faz
class, not an instance of it. It should not matter their positions in the class tree because some_class: Class[Foo]
should also be a valid case. Therefore,
# classes are callable, so it is OK
inst = some_class(**related_data)
or
# instances does not have __name__
clsname = some_class.__name__
or
# an operation that only Foo, Bar and Baz can perform.
some_class.a_common_classmethod()
should be OK to mypy, pytype, PyCharm, etc.
How can this be done with current implementation (Python 3.6 or earlier)?
To annotate an object that is a class, use typing.Type
. For example, this would tell the type checker that some_class
is class Foo
or any of its subclasses:
from typing import Type
class Foo: ...
class Bar(Foo): ...
class Baz: ...
some_class: Type[Foo]
some_class = Foo # ok
some_class = Bar # ok
some_class = Baz # error
some_class = Foo() # error
Note that Type[Union[Foo, Bar, Baz]]
and Union[Type[Foo], Type[Bar], Type[Baz]]
are completely equivalent.
If some_class
could be any of a number of classes, you may want to make them all inherit from the same base class, and use Type[BaseClass]
. Note that the inheritance must be non-virtual for now (mypy support for virtual inheritance is being discussed).
Edited to confirm that Type[Union[...
is allowed.