PEP 698 – Override Decorator for Static Typing
- Steven Troxler <steven.troxler at gmail.com>, Joshua Xu <jxu425 at fb.com>, Shannon Zhu <szhu at fb.com>
- Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra at gmail.com>
- Standards Track
Table of Contents
- Strict Enforcement Per-Project
- Backward Compatibility
- Runtime Behavior
- Rejected Alternatives
- Reference Implementation
This PEP proposes adding an
@override decorator to the Python type system.
This will allow type checkers to prevent a class of bugs that occur when a base
class changes methods that are inherited by derived classes.
A primary purpose of type checkers is to flag when refactors or changes break pre-existing semantic structures in the code, so users can identify and make fixes across their project without doing a manual audit of their code.
Python’s type system does not provide a way to identify call sites that need to be changed to stay consistent when an overridden function API changes. This makes refactoring and transforming code more dangerous.
Consider this simple inheritance structure:
class Parent: def foo(self, x: int) -> int: return x class Child(Parent): def foo(self, x: int) -> int: return x + 1 def parent_callsite(parent: Parent) -> None: parent.foo(1) def child_callsite(child: Child) -> None: child.foo(1)
If the overridden method on the superclass is renamed or deleted, type checkers will only alert us to update call sites that deal with the base type directly. But the type checker can only see the new code, not the change we made, so it has no way of knowing that we probably also needed to rename the same method on child classes.
A type checker will happily accept this code, even though we are likely introducing bugs:
class Parent: # Rename this method def new_foo(self, x: int) -> int: return x class Child(Parent): # This (unchanged) method used to override `foo` but is unrelated to `new_foo` def foo(self, x: int) -> int: return x + 1 def parent_callsite(parent: Parent) -> None: # If we pass a Child instance we’ll now run Parent.new_foo - likely a bug parent.new_foo(1) def child_callsite(child: Child) -> None: # We probably wanted to invoke new_foo here. Instead, we forked the method child.foo(1)
This code will type check, but there are two potential sources of bugs:
- If we pass a
Childinstance to the parent_callsite function, it will invoke the implementation in
Parent.new_foo. rather than
Child.foo. This is probably a bug - we presumably would not have written
Child.fooin the first place if we didn’t need custom behavior.
- Our system was likely relying on
Child.foobehaving in a similar way to
Parent.foo. But unless we catch this early, we have now forked the methods, and future refactors it is likely no one will realize that major changes to the behavior of new_foo likely require updating
Child.fooas well, which could lead to major bugs later.
The incorrectly-refactored code is type-safe, but is probably not what we intended and could cause our system to behave incorrectly. The bug can be difficult to track down because our new code likely does execute without throwing exceptions. Tests are less likely to catch the problem, and silent errors can take longer to track down in production.
We are aware of several production outages in multiple typed codebases caused by
such incorrect refactors. This is our primary motivation for adding an
decorator to the type system, which lets developers express the relationship
Child.foo so that type checkers can detect the problem.
Subclass Implementations Become More Explicit
We believe that explicit overrides will make unfamiliar code easier to read than
implicit overrides. A developer reading the implementation of a subclass that
@override can immediately see which methods are overriding
functionality in some base class; without this decorator, the only way to
quickly find out is using a static analysis tool.
Precedent in Other Languages and Runtime Libraries
Static Override Checks in Other Languages
Many popular programming languages support override checks. For example:
Runtime Override Checks in Python
Today, there is an Overrides library
that provides decorators
@overrides (sic) and
@final and will enforce
them at runtime.
PEP 591 added a
@final decorator with the same semantics as those in the
Overrides library. But the override component of the runtime library is not
supported statically at all, which has added some confusion around the
Providing support for
@override in static checks would add value because
- Bugs can be caught earlier, often in-editor.
- Static checks come with no performance overhead, unlike runtime checks.
- Bugs will be caught quickly even in rarely-used modules, whereas with runtime checks these might go undetected for a time without automated tests of all imports.
The two disadvantages we are aware of to using
@override are that
- The code becomes more verbose - overriding methods require one additional line.
- Adding or removing base class methods that impact overrides will require updating subclass code.
When type checkers encounter a method decorated with
should treat it as a type error unless that method is overriding a compatible
method or attribute in some ancestor class.
from typing import override class Parent: def foo(self) -> int: return 1 def bar(self, x: str) -> str: return x class Child(Parent): @override def foo(self) -> int: return 2 @override def baz() -> int: # Type check error: no matching signature in ancestor return 1
@override decorator should be permitted anywhere a type checker
considers a method to be a valid override, which typically includes not only
normal methods but also
Override Compatibility Rules are Unchanged
Type checkers already enforce compatibility rules for overrides; for example, a
subclass method’s type signature should be compatible with that of the
superclass method. These compatibility rules do not change due to the presence
or absence of
Note that when a
@property overrides a regular attribute of the base class,
this should not be considered an error due to the use of
@override, but the
type checker may still consider the override to be incompatible. For example a
type checker may consider it illegal to override a non-final attribute with a
getter property and no setter, as this does not respect the substitution
Strict Enforcement Per-Project
We plan to make the use of
@override required in Pyre’s strict mode. This
is a feature we believe most type checkers would benefit from.
The primary reason for a strict mode that requires
@override is that developers
can only trust that refactors are override-safe if they know that the
decorator is used throughout the project.
There is another class of bug related to overrides that we can only catch using a strict mode.
Consider the following code:
class Parent: pass class Child(Parent): def foo() -> int: return 2
Imagine we refactor it as follows:
class Parent def foo() -> int: # This method is new return 1 class Child(Parent): def foo() -> int: # This is now an override! return 2 def call_foo(parent: Parent) -> int: return base.foo() # This could invoke Child.foo, which may be surprising.
The semantics of our code changed here, which could cause two problems:
- If the author of the code change did not know that
Child.fooalready existed (which is very possible in a large codebase), they might be surprised to see that
call_foodoes not always invoke
- If the codebase authors tried to manually apply
@overrideeverywhere when writing overrides in subclasses, they are likely to miss the fact that
Child.fooneeds it here.
At first glance this kind of change may seem unlikely, but it can actually happen often if one or more subclasses have functionality that developers later realize belongs in the base class.
With a strict mode, we will always alert developers when this occurs.
Most of the typed, object-oriented programming languages we looked at have an easy way to require explicit overrides throughout a project:
- C#, Kotlin, Scala, and Swift always require explicit overrides
- Typescript has a –no-implicit-override flag to force explicit overrides
- In Hack and Java the type checker always treats overrides as opt-in, but widely-used linters can warn if explicit overrides are missing.
By default, the
@override decorator will be opt-in. Codebases that do not
use it will type-check as before, without the additional type safety.
@typing.override will do nothing but return its argument.
We considered other options but rejected them because the downsides seemed to outweigh the benefits, see the Rejected Alternatives section.
Rely on Integrated Development Environments for safety
Modern Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) often provide the ability to automatically update subclasses when renaming a method. But we view this as insufficient for several reasons:
- If a codebase is split into multiple projects, an IDE will not help and the bug appears when upgrading dependencies. Type checkers are a fast way to catch breaking changes in dependencies.
- Not all developers use such IDEs. And library maintainers, even if they do use an IDE, should not need to assume pull request authors use the same IDE. We prefer being able to detect problems in continuous integration without assuming anything about developers’ choice of editor.
We considered having
@typing.overrride enforce override safety at runtime,
similarly to how
We rejected this for three reasons:
- For users of static type checking, it is not clear this brings any benefits.
- There would be at least some performance overhead, leading to projects
importing slower with runtime enforcement. We estimate the
@overrides.overrridesimplementation takes around 100 microseconds, which is fast but could still add up to a second or more of extra initialization time in million-plus line codebases, which is exactly where we think
@typing.overridewill be most useful.
- An implementation may have edge cases where it doesn’t work well (we heard from a maintainer of one such closed-source library that this has been a problem). We expect static enforcement to be simple and reliable.
- The implementation approaches we know of are not simple. The decorator
executes before the class is finished evaluating, so the options we know of
are either to inspect the bytecode of the caller (as
@overrides.overrridesdoes) or to use a metaclass-based approach. Neither approach seems ideal.
Marking overrides at runtime with an
@overrides.overrrides decorator marks methods it decorates with an
We considered having
@typing.override do the same, since many typing
features are made available at runtime for runtime libraries to use them. We
decided against this because again the downsides seem to outweigh the benefits:
Setting an attribute significantly complicates correct use of the decorator
If we have any runtime behavior at all in our decorator, we have to worry about the order of decorators.
A decorator usually wraps a function in another function, and
would behave correctly if it were placed above all such decorators.
But some decorators instead define descriptors - for example
@property all use descriptors. In these cases,
@override below these decorators would work, but it would be
possible for libraries to define decorators in ways where even that would not
Moreover, we believe that it would be bad for most users - many of whom may not
even understand descriptors - to be faced with a feature where correct use of
@override depends on placing it in between decorators that are implemented
as wrapped functions and those that are implemented as
We prefer to have no runtime behavior, which allows us to not care about the
ordering and recommend, for style reasons, that
@override always comes
Lack of any clear benefit
We are not aware of any use for explicit marking of overrides other than the extra type safety it provides. This is in contrast to other typing features such as type annotations, which have important runtime uses such as metaprogramming and runtime type checking.
In light of the downsides described above, we decided the benefits are insufficient to justify runtime behavior.
Mark a base class to force explicit overrides on subclasses
We considered including a class decorator
would have provided a way for base classes to declare that all subclasses must
@override decorator on method overrides. The overrides library has a
EnforceExplicitOverrides, which provides similar behavior in
We decided against this because we expect owners of large codebases will benefit
@override, and for these use cases having a strict mode where
@override is required (see the Backward Compatibility section)
provides more benefits than a way to mark base classes.
Moreover we believe that authors of projects who do not consider the extra type
safety to be worth the additional boilerplate of using
@override should not
be forced to do so. Having an optional strict mode puts the decision in the
hands of project owners, whereas the use of
libraries would force project owners to use
@override even if they prefer
Pyre: A proof of concept is implemented in Pyre:
This document is placed in the public domain or under the CC0-1.0-Universal license, whichever is more permissive.
Last modified: 2022-09-23 17:42:25 GMT