Skip to content

Fix generic type validation for T::Props and composite members #2673

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
KaanOzkan merged 4 commits into from
Jul 27, 2026
Merged

Fix generic type validation for T::Props and composite members #2673

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ab5cbaf
Fix generic type validation for T::Props and composite members
dduugg Jul 15, 2026
b7dc82d
Subclass T::Types::Base so bare generic T::Props members validate
dduugg Jul 16, 2026
4f7193c
Trim comments to match repo style
dduugg Jul 16, 2026
ce867cc
Tighten GenericType class comment
dduugg Jul 21, 2026
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
9 changes: 9 additions & 0 deletions lib/tapioca/runtime/generic_type_registry.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -38,6 +38,15 @@ def initialize(raw_type, underlying_type)
def valid?(obj)
obj.is_a?(@underlying_type)
end

# `T::Types::Base#recursively_valid?` checks the clone `raw_type` instead of
# routing through `valid?`, so delegate to keep composite (`T.all`, `T::Hash`)
# and `T::Props` member validation consistent with the `valid?` override above.
# @override
#: (untyped obj) -> bool
def recursively_valid?(obj)
valid?(obj)
end

@KaanOzkan KaanOzkan Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess it's okay to allow everything while running tapioca dsl? There's a similar comment on create_generic_type below.

@dduugg dduugg Jul 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right, the full rationale already lives on create_generic_type's <= ("we act like all subtype checks pass", for serialization rather than runtime enforcement), so I left this as a one-line cross-reference to it instead of duplicating. And yes, allowing everything is fine here since tapioca dsl only serializes sigs, it doesn't enforce them at runtime.

end

class << self
Expand Down
13 changes: 13 additions & 0 deletions spec/tapioca/runtime/generic_type_registry_spec.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -62,6 +62,19 @@ class GenericTypeRegistrySpec < Minitest::Spec
T.let(SampleGenericInterfaceImplementation.new, SampleGenericInterface[Object])
end

it "recognizes underlying-type instances via recursively_valid? in composite/T::Props members (issue #2130)" do
struct_class = T.let(
Class.new(T::Struct) do
const :members, T::Hash[Symbol, SampleGenericInterface[Object]]
end,
T.untyped,
)

instance = struct_class.new(members: { key: SampleGenericInterfaceImplementation.new })

assert_instance_of(SampleGenericInterfaceImplementation, instance.members.fetch(:key))
end

it "does not reuse generic instances for redefined constants with the same name" do
first_constant, first_generic_type = register_reloadable_generic

Expand Down
Loading