[PyQt] About the automatically generated docstrings

[Elvis Stansvik]

As a side question: Is there some other IDE that does correct parsing
of these docstrings to provide autocompletion/syntax checking?
(Eric?). If so, then maybe the PyCharm devs could take inspiration
from that code.

Elvis

2016-02-09 9:49 GMT+01:00 Elvis Stansvik <elvstone at gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm following this PyCharm bug:
>
>     https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/PY-16818
>
> The problem is that PyCharm is misparsing the automatically generated
> docstrings present in PyQt5 when it generates the stubs it uses for
> syntax checking, autocompletion et.c., which leads to false negatives
> in the checking and less than stellar autocompletion.
>
> Looking at the stub generation output (which includes the original
> docstring from the PyQt5 library), one can see that PyQt5 is using a
> format for the docstrings that is slightly unorthodox:
>
> Example from the stub for QAbstractItemModel:
>
> def columnsMoved(self, *args, **kwargs): # real signature unknown
>     """ QAbstractItemModel.columnsMoved[QModelIndex, int, int,
> QModelIndex, int] [signal] """
>     pass
>
> Here the docstring is using brackets ([ and ]) instead of parenthesis
> around the method signature.
>
> And also:
>
> def headerData(self, p_int, Qt_Orientation, int_role=None): # real
> signature unknown; restored from __doc__
>     """ QAbstractItemModel.headerData(int, Qt.Orientation, int
> role=Qt.DisplayRole) -> QVariant """
>     return QVariant
>
> Here, for the first two parameters, the parameter name is missing. And
> PyCharm is also struggling to parse the "<type> <name>=<default>"
> convention that PyQt5 uses for the third argument.
>
> My question is whether these formats that PyQt5 uses is used by other
> tools? If so, I guess it's out of the question to change it into
> something that PyCharm has an easier time parsing? If not, then maybe
> PyQt5 and PyCharm could meet halfway so to speak: PyQt5 could change
> some of the stranger formats it uses, such as the brackets around the
> signature of signals (is that a bug?) and missing parameter names, and
> PyCharm could improve its parsing algorithms to special-handle the
> other conventions that PyQt5 uses?
>
> Cheers,
> Elvis