Add executable kwarg to trio.run_process type hints

[dj-foxxy]

The executable kwarg is missing from the type hints of trio.run_process. It works at run time but Pyright is complaining.

[clivinn-shla81092]

Hello, we tried to solve the issue.

This is what we did:

Add the 'executable' parameter to the type hints for the run_process function in both Windows and Unix overloads. This will resolve the Pyright complaint about the missing 'executable' kwarg.

You can review changes in this commit: clivinn-shla81092@a83f9d7.

Caution

Disclaimer: The concept of solution was created by AI and you should never copy paste this code before you check the correctness of generated code. Solution might not be complete, you should use this code as an inspiration only.

---

Latta AI seeks to solve problems in open source projects as part of its mission to support developers around the world. Learn more about our mission at https://latta.ai/ourmission . If you no longer want Latta AI to attempt solving issues on your repository, you can block this account.

[A5rocks]

The executable kwarg is missing from the type hints of trio.run_process. It works at run time but Pyright is complaining.

Absolutely, and it looks like we're missing other kwargs in the signature too. (and same for trio.open_process) Namely:

• executable (of course)
• group (3.9+, unix)
• extra_groups (3.9+, unix)
• user (3.9+, unix)
• umask (3.9+, unix)
• pipesize (3.10+, linux but is ignored so all platforms? or maybe unix)
• process_group (3.11+, unix)

Feel free to make a PR -- you'll have to add some if sys.version_info checks and update the cheat sheet comment on top of the overloads.

---

If you no longer want Latta AI to attempt solving issues on your repository, you can block this account.

Done!

[jakkdl]

That if TYPE_CHECKING block is gonna become an absolute monstrosity - it's already a ~third of the file with 400 lines. This might warrant a separate file (_subprocess_type_hints.py?) and maybe also a dedicated test that compares the type-checker inferred signature with that of subprocess.run (although given the false alarm rate on test_static_tool_sees_[...] I'm not terribly excited about that)

[A5rocks]

maybe also a dedicated test that compares the type-checker inferred signature with that of subprocess.run (although given the false alarm rate on test_static_tool_sees_[...] I'm not terribly excited about that)

I don't think this is possible because typeshed structures its overloads differently to ours (eg no platform specific ones)