MutaFix run: toolz-003

toolz/tests/test_inspect_args.py::test_introspect_curry_valid_py3
toolz/tests/test_inspect_args.py::test_introspect_curry_partial_py3
toolz/tests/test_inspect_args.py::test_introspect_curry_py3

E   assert False
E    +  where False = <function test_introspect_curry_valid_py3.<locals>.<lambda> at 0x0000024CEA1E4180>(<function func at 0x0000024CEA1E5260>)

E   assert True is False
E    +  where True = <function test_introspect_curry_valid_py3.<locals>.<lambda> at 0x0000024CEA1ABA60>(<function func at 0x0000024CEA1F0F40>, 2)
E    +    where <function func at 0x0000024CEA1F0F40> = <function func at 0x0000024CEA1F0F40>(x=1)

1. toolz/functoolz.py::curry.__repr__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 1.00 (failing 3, passing 0)
2. toolz/functoolz.py::curry.__init__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.87 (failing 3, passing 1)
3. toolz/functoolz.py::curry.__signature__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.87 (failing 3, passing 1)
4. toolz/functoolz.py::curry.args call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.78 (failing 3, passing 2)
5. toolz/functoolz.py::curry.func call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.78 (failing 3, passing 2)
6. toolz/functoolz.py::curry.keywords call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.78 (failing 3, passing 2)
7. toolz/functoolz.py::InstanceProperty.__get__ call depth - · Ochiai 0.78 (failing 3, passing 2)
8. toolz/functoolz.py::is_partial_args call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.66 (failing 3, passing 4)
9. toolz/functoolz.py::is_valid_args call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.47 (failing 2, passing 4)
10. toolz/functoolz.py::has_varargs call depth 3 · Ochiai 0.47 (failing 2, passing 4)
11. toolz/functoolz.py::_check_sigspec call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.43 (failing 3, passing 13)
12. toolz/functoolz.py::curry.__call__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.41 (failing 1, passing 1)
13. toolz/functoolz.py::curry._should_curry call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.41 (failing 1, passing 1)
14. toolz/functoolz.py::curry.bind call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.41 (failing 1, passing 1)
15. toolz/functoolz.py::is_arity call depth - · Ochiai 0.41 (failing 1, passing 1)
16. toolz/_signatures.py::signature_or_spec call depth 3 · Ochiai 0.33 (failing 1, passing 2)
17. toolz/functoolz.py::has_keywords call depth - · Ochiai 0.33 (failing 1, passing 2)
18. toolz/functoolz.py::num_required_args call depth - · Ochiai 0.26 (failing 1, passing 4)
19. toolz/_signatures.py::check_valid call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 0)
20. toolz/functoolz.py::curry.__eq__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 0)

We need to look deeper. The issue seems to be about how curry handles keyword arguments and required parameters. Let's examine the test more closely.

From the test failures:

In test_introspect_curry_valid_py3:
- They create a curried function from make_func('x, y, z=0') which has two required args (x,y) and one optional (z).
- They then do various checks with check_valid (which is a wrapper around is_valid_args).

Specifically, they have:
    f = toolz.curry(make_func('x, y, z=0'))
    assert check_valid(f)   # Should be valid? Actually, a curried function with no args provided should be valid because it can accept more args.
    ... many assertions ...

But one of them fails: the very first `assert check_valid(f)` fails.

So the problem is that the curried function `f` (with no arguments provided) is being considered invalid by `check_valid` (which is `is_valid_args`).

Let's look at `is_valid_args` (candidate 9). But first, let's see what `check_valid` does in the test: they define:
    check_valid = lambda _func, *args, **kwargs: orig_check_valid(_func, args, kwargs)
So it's calling `orig_check_valid` (which is `is_valid_args`) with the function and then the args as a tuple and kwargs as a dict.

So `is_valid_args(func, args, kwargs)` returns False for the curried function with no arguments.

Now, what does `is_valid_args` do? Let's read it.

But note: the test also uses `check_valid(f, 1)` etc. So we need to understand the expected behavior.

Alternatively, let's look a

We need to look at `_check_sigspec` and `_sigs._is_valid_args` to understand what's happening.
But note: the test defines `check_valid = lambda _func, *args, **kwargs: orig_check_valid(_func, args, kwargs)`
So it's calling `orig_check_valid(func, args, kwargs)` meaning it passes `args` as a tuple and `kwargs` as a dict.
In the test, we see calls like `check_valid(f)` which becomes `orig_check_valid(f, (), {})`.
So we need to see why `is_valid_args(f, (), {})` returns False.

Let's look at `_check_sigspec`:

We have to look at the test more closely. The test defines:

    def test_introspect_curry_valid_py3(check_valid=is_valid_args, incomplete=False):
        orig_check_valid = check_valid
        check_valid = lambda _func, *args, **kwargs: orig_check_valid(_func, args, kwargs)

So the check_valid passed to the test is actually a lambda that wraps is_valid_args. Then they do:

    f = toolz.curry(make_func('x, y, z=0'))
    assert check_valid(f)

This becomes: is_valid_args(f, (), {})

Now, what does is_valid_args do? It calls _check_sigspec(None, f, ...) which tries to get the signature of f. Since f is a curry object, it has a __signature__ property (from candidate 3). So we should look at that.

But note: the test also does:

    assert check_valid(f, 1)
    assert check_valid(f, 1, 2)
    ... etc.

And then later:

    assert check_valid(f(1))   # which is a partial application

So the problem might be that the curry object's __signature__ is not being computed correctly, leading to is_valid_args returning False when it should return True.

Let's look at the __signature__ method of curry (candidate 3). We saw it earlier, but let's read it again in full.

We'll read candidate 3.

We have identified that the issue might be in the __signature__ method. Let's look at the logic:

In the loop over parameters, we have:
  - We skip the first `len(args)` parameters (positional arguments already provided).
  - Then for each remaining parameter, we check:
      if kind is VAR_KEYWORD: pass (do nothing)
      elif kind is not VAR_POSITIONAL:
          if kwonly: continue   # skip if we are in keyword-only section and this is not keyword-only?
      elif param.name in keywords:   # This branch is for VAR_POSITIONAL? Actually, note: the condition above is `elif kind != param.VAR_POSITIONAL` so this branch is for when kind is VAR_POSITIONAL? Wait, let's reformat:

Actually, the code is:

  for param in params[skip:]:
      kind = param.kind
      default = param.default
      if kind == param.VAR_KEYWORD:
          pass
      elif kind != param.VAR_POSITIONAL:
          if kwonly:
              continue
      elif param.name in keywords:   # This is actually the condition for when kind == VAR_POSITIONAL? No, note: the previous condition was `elif kind != param.VAR_POSITIONAL`, so this `elif` is for when kind == VAR_POSITIONAL? Actually, no: the structure is:

      if kind == VAR_KEYWORD: ...
      elif kind != VAR_POSITIONAL: ...   # This covers everything that is not VAR_POSITIONAL and not VAR_KEYWORD? Actually, note: VAR_POSITIONAL is excluded by the condition, so this block is for POSITIONAL_OR_KEYWORD, KEYWORD_ONLY, etc.
          if kwonly: continue
      els

We have examined several functions. The problem seems to be that the curry object's __signature__ might be incorrectly computed, leading to is_valid_args returning false when it should return true.

Looking at the test failures:

In test_introspect_curry_valid_py3:
   We have a function make_func('x, y, z=0') which has parameters x, y, z with default 0.
   We create a curry: f = toolz.curry(make_func('x, y, z=0'))
   Then we check:
      assert check_valid(f)   -> This is checking if the curry object can be called with no arguments? Actually, note that check_valid is defined as:
          check_valid = lambda _func, *args, **kwargs: orig_check_valid(_func, args, kwargs)
      So when we do check_valid(f), it becomes orig_check_valid(f, (), {})

   The orig_check_valid is is_valid_args (from the test parameter). So we are calling is_valid_args(f, (), {}).

   Inside is_valid_args:
        It gets the signature of f (which is a curry object) via __signature__.
        Then it tries to bind the arguments () and {} to that signature.

   The test expects this to return True, but it returns False.

   Similarly, in test_introspect_curry_partial_py3, we have:
        f = toolz.curry(make_func('x, y, z=0'))(x=1)   [Actually, the test does: f = toolz.curry(make_func('x, y, z=0')); then f(1) etc., but the failure is on:
        assert check_valid(f, 2) is False   [Wait, the error says: assert True is False, meaning that check_valid(f, 2) returned True but the test expected False? Let'

We have examined several candidates. The tests are failing in a way that suggests the context of checking validity of curried functions. The errors indicate that:

1. For a fresh curry object (no arguments), `check_valid(f)` is returning False when it should be True.
2. When we partially apply with a keyword (e.g., `f(x=1)`), then trying to apply a positional argument for the first parameter (which was already set by keyword) should be invalid, but the test expects it to be invalid and it is? Actually, the test says:
   - `assert check_valid(f(x=1), 2) is False` -> this is expected to be False, and it is? Wait, the error says:
     E   assert True is False
     E    +  where True = <function ...>(<function func at ...>, 2)
     So the check_valid returned True when it should have returned False.

Let's look at the test again for `test_introspect_curry_valid_py3`:

We have:
    f = toolz.curry(make_func('x, y, z=0'))
    ... 
    assert check_valid(f(x=1), y=2)   # This is expected to be True? Let's see the test:

Actually, the test has:
    assert check_valid(f(x=1), y=2)

But in the error for `test_introspect_curry_partial_py3` we see:
    E   assert True is False
    E    +  where True = <function test_introspect_curry_valid_py3.<locals>.<lambda> at 0x0000024CEA1ABA60>(<function func at 0x0000024CEA1F0F40>, 2)
    E    +    where <function func at 0x0000024CEA1F0F40> = <function func at 0x0000024CEA1F0F40>(x=1)

So the test is calling `check_valid(f, 2)` where `f` is the re