brubsby
commented
1 year ago I have however found that it seems like this inspection is built from the documentation, as this is the code it renders for the implementation of gmpy2.mpz reads:
def __init__(self): # real signature unknown; restored from __doc__
passPerhaps this can be alleviated by updating the docs to have the documentation be more "parseable"? If it's grabbing it from here:
"""
mpz() -> mpz(0)
If no argument is given, return mpz(0).
mpz(n) -> mpz
Return an 'mpz' object with a numeric value 'n' (truncating n
to its integer part if it's a Fraction, 'mpq', float or 'mpfr').
mpz(s[, base=0]):
Return an 'mpz' object from a string 's' made of digits in the
given base. If base=0, binary, octal, or hex Python strings
are recognized by leading 0b, 0o, or 0x characters, otherwise
the string is assumed to be decimal. Values for base can range
between 2 and 62.
"""Maybe the second paragraph needs to go first? Just a guess.
This isn't annoying to me enough to where I want to struggle with building and deploying gmpy2 myself, but it seems easy enough for a maintainer to fix.
BrianGladman
I'm unsure exactly what's causing this, but pycharm 2022.3 community edition always seems to complain about passing a parameter to gmpy2.mpz, e.g. gmpy2.mpz(123456789) or gmpy2.mpz("123456789"). And there's no way from the instance of the inspection error to ignore it. So I assume there's something that can be done from the library side (if not a further buried option on the client side I've yet to find). If I had to warrant a guess, it's finding the signature with no parameter passed and assuming you can't pass a positional argument ever.
The code always runs fine but the inspection just complains and clutter's up the screen, and I don't want to disable this specific inspection as it is useful.