inspect.dir_static

[voidspace]

BPO	11770
Nosy	@merwok, @voidspace, @Trundle, @durban, @PCManticore
Files	issue11770.patch

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = 'https://github.com/voidspace'
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2011-04-05.11:08:55.202>
labels = ['type-feature', 'library']
title = 'inspect.dir_static'
updated_at = <Date 2014-01-29.06:44:33.488>
user = 'https://github.com/voidspace'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2014-01-29.06:44:33.488>
actor = 'Claudiu.Popa'
assignee = 'michael.foord'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2011-04-05.11:08:55.202>
creator = 'michael.foord'
dependencies = []
files = ['21591']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 11770
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 6.0
messages = ['133017', '133320', '133322', '133372', '133382', '133434']
nosy_count = 5.0
nosy_names = ['eric.araujo', 'michael.foord', 'Trundle', 'daniel.urban', 'Claudiu.Popa']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'low'
resolution = None
stage = 'patch review'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue11770'
versions = ['Python 3.5']

[voidspace]

A version of dir that returns all the members that can be seen by getattr_static.

[merwok]

Would it respect __dir__?

[voidspace]

No. It would return all members accessible to getattr_static (which is completely unrelated to what __dir__ may or may not return). Also calling __dir__ would mean code execution, and the point of these functions is to avoid this where possible.

[Trundle]

A first patch, misses any documentation changes. While working on it, I realised that modules technically shadow the dict attribute (because modules use tp_dictoffset, hence module have a dict member that points to the instance dict). I updated _shadowed_dict() so that it now disregards member descriptors as shadowing (as they will never trigger any code execution), but theoretically, the members can be any object (not just dicts), so I have to think a bit more about that case (as a custom object still can trigger code execution).

Also, dir_static() behaves slightly different from dir() (e.g. dir() raises a TypeError if the module's "dict" attribute isn't a dictionary, which is kind of impossible for dir_static as it doesn't even try to acccess __dict__ if it is shadowed), but IMHO such edge-cases are expected to behave differently for a static version and hence we don't care at all about that.

[voidspace]

Thanks for the patch Andreas. On a quick read through it looks good. I'll do a proper review shortly.

[Trundle]

See issue bpo-11813 for the module problem.