GeezerVison is showing github.com — Adding type stubs · Issue #448 · msgpack/msgpack-python
DescriptionIn the course of using msgpack in a project I've written some basic type stubs for the parts of the API I'm using.
I don't think it would be too hard to fill out the type stubs for the rest of the API.
Would you accept a PR adding stub files to the package?
Not sure if you have a preference on adding the types to the code itself or keeping them as separate stub files.
related: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0561/ Reacted by MapleCCC, Emi, Derek Kulinski, Shahriar Heidrich, austinbutler, Jack McIvor, Neil Girdhar and lovetheguitar Activitymethane commented on Dec 11, 2020
Would you accept a PR adding stub files to the package?
I expect it will be very complex types and very low benefit for users, because msgpack can pack/unpack various types. I don't want to maintain it.
But if it is simple and very useful, I will consider it. methane commented on Jan 27, 2021 sbdchd commented on Jan 27, 2021 Reacted by Emi, Evgeny Markov, Shahriar Heidrich, earonesty, Allan Daemon and jdhao jfolz commented on Mar 19, 2021 Well, I know for a fact that this is incorrect. Unpacking methods accept any object that implements the buffer protocol, so next to bytes there's also bytearray, array, memoryview, numpy.ndarray, etc. There is a long-standing issue to add the ability to describe things as "buffer-like". It's an open issue, because buffers are very variable (writeable or not, data types, contiguous or non-contiguous, strided) and you need to describe them pretty accurately so your type annotation is actually useful. rodrigogiraoserrao commented on Feb 17, 2023 It's been almost 2 years but a comment on the linked issue says PEP 688 is here to save the day.
Was that the thing that we needed to unblock this? jfolz commented on Feb 18, 2023 Well, for one a PEP needs to be accepted and implemented first to make a difference. As of now it's just a draft. rodrigogiraoserrao commented on Feb 18, 2023 Ugh, sorry. Got so carried away by it that I didn't even check the PEP status. jfolz commented on Mar 10, 2023 Good news is that PEP 688 has been accepted. Bad news is that it'll be available in Python 3.12 at the earliest. Any earlier version would need a backport. Reacted by Rodrigo Girão Serrão and Shahriar Heidrich clokep commented on May 30, 2023
Good news is that PEP 688 has been accepted. Bad news is that it'll be available in Python 3.12 at the earliest. Any earlier version would need a backport.
typing-extensions now supports Buffer in the latest release, this is a common way to backport new typing PEPs to projects. Reacted by Shahriar Heidrich, Jack McIvor and Neil Girdhar rexzhang commented on Mar 6, 2025
Would you accept a PR adding stub files to the package?
I expect it will be very complex types and very low benefit for users, because msgpack can pack/unpack various types. I don't want to maintain it.
But if it is simple and very useful, I will consider it.
The return value of msgpack.packb is bytes, which can reduce many warnings if it is type-annotated. Reacted by Allan Daemon and Pea Soft
MetadataMetadataDevelopmentNo branches or pull requestsIssue actions
|