Skip to content

Add classmethod to stripe.PaymentIntent.confirm. #8498

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 8, 2022
Merged

Add classmethod to stripe.PaymentIntent.confirm. #8498

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 3 additions & 2 deletions stubs/stripe/@tests/stubtest_allowlist.txt
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
# DeletableAPIResource.delete is has a custom classmethod overload
stripe\..*\.delete
# The following methods have custom classmethod decorators
stripe\..*\.delete
stripe\..*PaymentIntent\.confirm
11 changes: 10 additions & 1 deletion stubs/stripe/stripe/api_resources/payment_intent.pyi
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
from typing import overload

from stripe.api_resources.abstract import (
CreateableAPIResource as CreateableAPIResource,
ListableAPIResource as ListableAPIResource,
Expand All @@ -9,4 +11,11 @@ class PaymentIntent(CreateableAPIResource, ListableAPIResource, UpdateableAPIRes
OBJECT_NAME: str
def cancel(self, idempotency_key: str | None = ..., **params): ...
def capture(self, idempotency_key: str | None = ..., **params): ...
def confirm(self, idempotency_key: str | None = ..., **params): ...
@overload
@classmethod
def confirm(
cls, intent: str, api_key: str | None = ..., stripe_version: str | None = ..., stripe_account: str | None = ..., **params
): ...
@overload
@classmethod
def confirm(cls, idempotency_key: str | None = ..., **params): ...
Comment on lines +14 to +21
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't the second overload not be decorated with @classmethod? If I understand the @class_method_variant decorator correctly, this can be called in two versions:

PaymentIntent().confirm("key", ...)
PaymentIntent.confirm("payment intent", "key", ...)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@PIG208 PIG208 Aug 8, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is mainly for avoiding mypy complaining about one of the methods not being decorated consistently with @classmethod; another reason is that mypy does not correctly remove the first argument of the second variant for the caller without them both having @classmethod. The first error can be silenced with a # type: ignore directive, but the second error is likely a bug.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If it works, I'm fine with this. I think it would be a good idea to add a test case for a complicated case like this, though. Maybe @AlexWaygood can help with this.

We could also try to annotate class_method_variant() correctly and use the decorator here. Descriptor protocol support in type checkers is decent. But that's probably out of scope for this PR.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it would be a good idea to add a test case for a complicated case like this, though. Maybe @AlexWaygood can help with this.

We don't (yet) have the infrastructure set up to add test cases for our third-party stub -- only our stdlib stubs. This has come up a few times now, though, so I can work on setting something up. But we probably shouldn't wait on merging this PR before then.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I filed #8505 as a reminder to myself.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@PIG208 PIG208 Aug 8, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could also try to annotate class_method_variant() correctly and use the decorator here. Descriptor protocol support in type checkers is decent. But that's probably out of scope for this PR.

Yes. That's helpful for sweeping up other similar use cases of the decorator in the stubs, but I am not sure how that will be possible with type annotation alone. We can figure this out later.