[ruff] Make fix unsafe if it deletes comments (RUF019) (#22663)

<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:

- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
  requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->

## Summary

<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->

## Test Plan

<!-- How was it tested? -->

crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/RUF019.py

@@ -22,3 +22,11 @@ v = "k" in d and d["k"]
 
 if f() in d and d[f()]:
     pass
+
+
+if (
+        "key" in d
+        and  # text
+        d ["key"]
+):
+    ...

crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/ruff/rules/unnecessary_key_check.rs

@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+use ruff_diagnostics::Applicability;
 use ruff_python_ast::comparable::ComparableExpr;
 use ruff_python_ast::{self as ast, BoolOp, CmpOp, Expr};
 
@@ -28,6 +29,9 @@ use crate::{AlwaysFixableViolation, Edit, Fix};
 /// if dct.get("key"):
 ///     ...
 /// ```
+///
+/// ## Fix safety
+/// This rule's fix is marked as safe, unless the expression contains comments.
 #[derive(ViolationMetadata)]
 #[violation_metadata(stable_since = "v0.2.0")]
 pub(crate) struct UnnecessaryKeyCheck;
@@ -104,18 +108,28 @@ pub(crate) fn unnecessary_key_check(checker: &Checker, expr: &Expr) {
     }
 
     let mut diagnostic = checker.report_diagnostic(UnnecessaryKeyCheck, expr.range());
-    diagnostic.set_fix(Fix::safe_edit(Edit::range_replacement(
-        format!(
-            "{}.get({})",
-            checker.locator().slice(
-                parenthesized_range(obj_right.into(), right.into(), checker.tokens(),)
-                    .unwrap_or(obj_right.range())
-            ),
-            checker.locator().slice(
-                parenthesized_range(key_right.into(), right.into(), checker.tokens(),)
-                    .unwrap_or(key_right.range())
+
+    let applicability = if checker.comment_ranges().intersects(expr.range()) {
+        Applicability::Unsafe
+    } else {
+        Applicability::Safe
+    };
+
+    diagnostic.set_fix(Fix::applicable_edit(
+        Edit::range_replacement(
+            format!(
+                "{}.get({})",
+                checker.locator().slice(
+                    parenthesized_range(obj_right.into(), right.into(), checker.tokens(),)
+                        .unwrap_or(obj_right.range())
+                ),
+                checker.locator().slice(
+                    parenthesized_range(key_right.into(), right.into(), checker.tokens(),)
+                        .unwrap_or(key_right.range())
+                ),
             ),
+            expr.range(),
         ),
-        expr.range(),
-    )));
+        applicability,
+    ));
 }

crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/ruff/snapshots/ruff_linter__rules__ruff__tests__RUF019_RUF019.py.snap

@@ -114,3 +114,26 @@ help: Replace with `dict.get`
 19 | 
 20 | # OK
 21 | v = "k" in d and d["k"]
+
+RUF019 [*] Unnecessary key check before dictionary access
+  --> RUF019.py:28:9
+   |
+27 |   if (
+28 | /         "key" in d
+29 | |         and  # text
+30 | |         d ["key"]
+   | |_________________^
+31 |   ):
+32 |       ...
+   |
+help: Replace with `dict.get`
+25 | 
+26 | 
+27 | if (
+   -         "key" in d
+   -         and  # text
+   -         d ["key"]
+28 +         d.get("key")
+29 | ):
+30 |     ...
+note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior