| I tested it quickly on a 30kLOC project. zmypy seems to be faster than mypy indeed: Without mypy cache: $ rm -rf .mypy_cache
$ time mypy
Success: no issues found in 157 source files
mypy 20.40s user 2.33s system 108% cpu 20.886 total
With mypy cache without any changes: $ mypy --version
mypy 1.16.0 (compiled: yes)
$ time mypy
Success: no issues found in 157 source files
mypy 0.56s user 1.84s system 628% cpu 0.381 total
mypy with a small change in a shared module $ time mypy
Success: no issues found in 157 source files
mypy tests/ 2.32s user 2.06s system 168% cpu 2.601 total
zmypy: $ time zmypy
Found 68 errors in 16 files (checked 157 source files)
zmypy 0.68s user 0.05s system 99% cpu 0.731 total
Without caching and parallelization (as the 99% CPU usage indicates) it comes in the range of mypy using the cache and multiple cores (628% CPU usage) without any changes in the code.zmypy seems to find more errors but they mostly boil down to the following errors * Call to untyped function "__setitem__" in typed context * ... has incompatible type "MagicMock"; expected ... Maybe __setitem__ and MagicMock are treated specially in mypy? Also there seem to be differences in handling Protocol and enum comparison. |