Thinking about a change to

@rule

that allows you to specify the param types in the decorator and it ignores the annotation. Use-case is "inner" rules:

def rule_maker(a):
    @rule(param_type_override={"foo": a.sometype})
    def my_rule(foo: Foo) -> ...:
        ...

Chicanery!

Let me edit to be more realistic

.... Anti-chicanery!

Just use the provided annotation. 🤷‍♂️

Right, but would

mypy

or whatever end up using the override? Or would it still think

Foo

is the type?

Yeah in this case, mypy only sees the annotation. The rule argument is for pants

I know it says that it's not meant for direct consumption, but what about instantiating the TaskRule directly? There are several levels of introspecting decorators that this would need to be plumbed through, it might just be easier to have a

def rule_maker(a)
    def my_rule(foo: Foo) -> Tout:
        ...

    return = TaskRule(
        output_type=Tout,
        input_selectors=[a.sometype],
        func=my_rule,
        ...
    )

Yeah that was my plan

Pants uses the type annotation of the param as a convenient way to get graph info. Nothing says that has to be where pants gets it from

FYI we used to have a much more verbose syntax in the early days of v2. I've forgotten what it was lol. Using type hints was a huge simplification, but you are correct that it need not come from there always

Thats my point. We can augment it 😛 (Although now its a moot point because I know how to workaround it)