Title: lineno and col_offset are wrong on function definitions with decorators
Type: behavior Stage: resolved
Components: Library (Lib) Versions: Python 3.8, Python 3.7, Python 3.6, Python 3.4, Python 3.5, Python 2.7
Status: closed Resolution: fixed
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: Nosy List: eric.smith, ethan smith, gforcada, levkivskyi, nitishch, serhiy.storchaka
Priority: normal Keywords: patch

Created on 2018-04-03 05:13 by gforcada, last changed 2018-11-23 02:24 by levkivskyi. This issue is now closed.

Pull Requests
URL Status Linked Edit
PR 6410 closed ethan smith, 2018-04-07 12:18
PR 6460 closed ethan smith, 2018-04-12 22:33
PR 9731 ethan smith, 2018-11-23 02:17
Messages (8)
msg314861 - (view) Author: Gil Forcada Codinachs (gforcada) * Date: 2018-04-03 05:13
Given the following code:

class MyClass(object):

    def my_function(self): pass

Parsing it with ast module, the lineno and col_offset of the ast.FunctionDef is reported to be where the decorator starts (i.e. line 3 column 4) rather than where the actual def statement is (i.e. line 4 column 4).

This is due to the decorator that is part of the ast.FunctionDef, but as  there can be multiple decorators (which they don't provide their own lineno and col_offset arguments) and they can span across multiple lines, there is no reliable way to actually know where the actual def statement starts physically.

See this bug report on flake8-builtins plugin (I'm the author) reported by @dhood user on github:
msg314864 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-04-03 07:50
See how similar issue was solved in Pyflakes:

Python tests also needed special workaround, see Lib/test/ and issue17288.
msg314906 - (view) Author: Ethan Smith (ethan smith) * Date: 2018-04-03 22:35
There is also a relevant mypy bug report This seems like a common problem for tools working on the AST. The relevant code seems to be 

Would a possible solution be adding a decorated_lineno attribute to decorated ast nodes?
msg315008 - (view) Author: Ethan Smith (ethan smith) * Date: 2018-04-05 23:41
I have a branch with an implementation of my suggestion here:

I was hoping to see if this was seen as a reasonable patch that might be accepted.

Also, while I think it would be nice, I take it a patch for this would be unlikely to be backported, right?
msg315046 - (view) Author: Ivan Levkivskyi (levkivskyi) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-04-07 00:18
> I was hoping to see if this was seen as a reasonable patch that might be accepted.

I didn't look carefully but superficially it looks reasonable, so it is worth trying.

> Also, while I think it would be nice, I take it a patch for this would be unlikely to be backported, right?

I think this is unlikely because it affects some public APIs.
msg315074 - (view) Author: Ethan Smith (ethan smith) * Date: 2018-04-07 21:29
In my PR, I added `def_lineno` and `class_lineno` as fields in the ASDL, instead of attributes (since constructors cannot have attributes, only types can). This means they show up in `ast.dump` which is probably not the desired behavior, as it makes the dumped ast whitespace/line offset sensitive.

Therefore I propose we change the line number of the nodes to be the one of the def/class statement. It seems based on [this commit]( that the change was done to fix inspect.getsource (so that it started on the first decorator), but I think it is much more logical for inspect to handle decorated items instead of having the ast lie.

One other option could be for a modified ast to have a decorated node, which holds the decorator list, and the class/function. This has the possible downside of being a not-insignificant change to the ast.
msg330181 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-11-21 08:30
Sorry, I forgot about this issue and independently made similar changes in issue34876. Please rebase your PR and determine whether it contains any useful changes in comparison with the current code (maybe new non-duplicated tests or useful refactoring?).
msg330291 - (view) Author: Ethan Smith (ethan smith) * Date: 2018-11-23 02:17
This has been fixed, so the issue can be closed I believe. 

FWIW I didn't see anything useful to salvage from my PR that wasn't already tested by your tests Serhiy.
Date User Action Args
2018-11-23 02:24:00levkivskyisetstatus: open -> closed
resolution: fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
2018-11-23 02:17:56ethan smithsetmessages: + msg330291
pull_requests: + pull_request9923
2018-11-21 08:30:59serhiy.storchakasetmessages: + msg330181
2018-04-25 00:13:19eric.smithsetnosy: + eric.smith
2018-04-12 22:33:05ethan smithsetpull_requests: + pull_request6154
2018-04-07 21:29:28ethan smithsetmessages: + msg315074
2018-04-07 12:18:10ethan smithsetkeywords: + patch
stage: patch review
pull_requests: + pull_request6115
2018-04-07 00:18:20levkivskyisetmessages: + msg315046
2018-04-05 23:41:50ethan smithsetmessages: + msg315008
2018-04-05 09:07:50levkivskyisetnosy: + levkivskyi
2018-04-05 07:22:57nitishchsetnosy: + nitishch
2018-04-03 22:35:18ethan smithsetnosy: + ethan smith
messages: + msg314906
2018-04-03 07:50:28serhiy.storchakasetnosy: + serhiy.storchaka
messages: + msg314864
2018-04-03 05:13:29gforcadacreate