[red-knot] Ensure differently ordered unions and intersections are understood as equivalent even inside arbitrarily nested tuples #15740
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
On
main
, red-knot:P | Q
equivalent toQ | P
tuple[P | Q]
equivalent totuple[Q | P]
tuple[P | tuple[P | Q]]
equivalent totuple[tuple[Q | P] | P]
tuple[tuple[P | Q]]
equivalent totuple[tuple[Q | P]]
The key difference for the last one of these is that the union appears inside a tuple that is directly nested inside another tuple.
This PR fixes this so that differently ordered unions are considered equivalent even when they appear inside arbitrarily nested tuple types.
Test Plan
main