This pull request fixes the bug described in issue
[#19153](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/19153).
The issue occurred when `PERF403` incorrectly flagged cases involving
tuple unpacking in a for loop. For example:
```python
def f():
v = {}
for (o, p), x in [("op", "x")]:
v[x] = o, p
```
This code was wrongly suggested to be rewritten into a dictionary
comprehension, which changes the semantics.
Changes in this PR:
Updated the `PERF403` rule to correctly handle tuple unpacking in loop
targets.
Added regression tests to ensure this case (and similar ones) are no
longer flagged incorrectly.
Why:
This ensures that `PERF403` only triggers when a dictionary
comprehension is semantically equivalent to the original loop,
preventing false positives.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
Adds new rule to catch use of builtins `input()` in async functions.
Issue #8451
## Test Plan
New snapshosts in `ASYNC250.py` with `cargo insta test`.
<!--
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? -->
Fixes#19664
Fix allowed unused imports matching for top-level modules.
I've simply replaced `from_dotted_name` with `user_defined`. Since
QualifiedName for imports is created in
crates/ruff_python_semantic/src/imports.rs, I guess it's acceptable to
use `user_defined` here. Please tell me if there is better way.
0c5089ed9e/crates/ruff_python_semantic/src/imports.rs (L62)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I've added a snapshot test
`f401_allowed_unused_imports_top_level_module`.
## Summary
Adds new rule to find and report use of `httpx.Client` in synchronous
functions.
See issue #8451
## Test Plan
New snapshots for `ASYNC212.py` with `cargo insta test`.
## Summary
Fixes#19581
I decided to add in a `indent_first_line` function into
[`textwrap.rs`](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/main/crates/ruff_python_trivia/src/textwrap.rs),
as it solely focuses on text manipulation utilities. It follows the same
design as `indent()`, and there may be situations in the future where it
can be reused as well.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
<!--
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? -->
Extend the following rules.
### AIR311
* `airflow.sensors.base.BaseSensorOperator` →
airflow.sdk.bases.sensor.BaseSensorOperator`
* `airflow.sensors.base.PokeReturnValue` →
airflow.sdk.bases.sensor.PokeReturnValue`
* `airflow.sensors.base.poke_mode_only` →
airflow.sdk.bases.sensor.poke_mode_only`
* `airflow.decorators.base.DecoratedOperator` →
airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.DecoratedOperator`
* `airflow.models.param.Param` → airflow.sdk.definitions.param.Param`
* `airflow.decorators.base.DecoratedMappedOperator` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.DecoratedMappedOperator`
* `airflow.decorators.base.DecoratedOperator` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.DecoratedOperator`
* `airflow.decorators.base.TaskDecorator` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.TaskDecorator`
* `airflow.decorators.base.get_unique_task_id` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.get_unique_task_id`
* `airflow.decorators.base.task_decorator_factory` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.task_decorator_factory`
### AIR312
* `airflow.sensors.bash.BashSensor` →
`airflow.providers.standard.sensor.bash.BashSensor`
* `airflow.sensors.python.PythonSensor` →
`airflow.providers.standard.sensors.python.PythonSensor`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update the test fixture accordingly in the second commit and reorg in
the third
Closes#19302
<!--
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
This adds an auto-fix for `Logging statement uses f-string` Ruff G004,
so users don't have to resolve it manually.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I ran the auto-fixes on a Python file locally and and it worked as
expected.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Summary
--
This PR aims to resolve (or help to resolve) #18442 and #19357 by
encoding the CPython semantics around the `__class__` cell in our
semantic model. Namely,
> `__class__` is an implicit closure reference created by the compiler
if any methods in a class body refer to either `__class__` or super.
from the Python
[docs](https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#creating-the-class-object).
As noted in the variant docs by @AlexWaygood, we don't fully model this
behavior, opting always to create the `__class__` cell binding in a new
`ScopeKind::DunderClassCell` around each method definition, without
checking if any method in the class body actually refers to `__class__`
or `super`.
As such, this PR fixes#18442 but not #19357.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests, plus the tests from #19783, which now pass without any
rule-specific code.
Note that we opted not to alter the behavior of F841 here because
flagging `__class__` in these cases still seems helpful. See the
discussion in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20048#discussion_r2296252395 and
in the test comments for more information.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Mikko Leppänen <mleppan23@gmail.com>
Adds a method to `TStringValue` to detect whether the t-string is empty
_as an iterable_. Note the subtlety here that, unlike f-strings, an
empty t-string is still truthy (i.e. `bool(t"")==True`).
Closes#19951
## Summary
Resolves#19561
Fixes the [unnecessary-future-import
(UP010)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/unnecessary-future-import/)
rule to correctly identify when imported __future__ modules are actually
used in the code, preventing false positives.
I assume there is no way to check usage in `analyze::statements`,
because we don't have any usage bindings for imports. To determine
unused imports, we have to fully scan the file to create bindings and
then check usage, similar to [unused-import
(F401)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/unused-import/#unused-import-f401).
So, `Rule::UnnecessaryFutureImport` was moved from the
`analyze::statements` to the `analyze::deferred_scopes` stage. This
caused the need to change the logic of future import handling to a
bindings-based approach.
Also, the diagnostic report was changed.
Before
```
|
1 | from __future__ import nested_scopes, generators
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ UP010
```
after
```
|
1 | from __future__ import nested_scopes, generators
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ UP010
```
I believe this is the correct way, because `generators` may be used, but
`nested_scopes` is not.
### Special case
I've found out about some specific case.
```python
from __future__ import nested_scopes
nested_scopes = 1
```
Here we can treat `nested_scopes` as an unused import because the
variable `nested_scopes` shadows it and we can safely remove the future
import (my fix does it).
But
[F401](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/unused-import/#unused-import-f401)
not triggered for such case
([sandbox](https://play.ruff.rs/296d9c7e-0f02-4659-b0c0-78cc21f3de76))
```
from foo import print_function
print_function = 1
```
In my mind, `print_function` here is an unused import and should be
deleted (my IDE highlight it). What do you think?
## Test Plan
Added test cases and snapshots:
- Split test file into separate _0 and _1 files for appropriate checks.
- Added test cases to verify fixes when future module are used.
---------
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
**Stacked on top of #19849; diff will include that PR until it is
merged.**
---
<!--
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
As part of #19849, I noticed this fix could be implemented.
## Test Plan
Tests added based on CPython behaviour.
## Summary
- Refactored `BLE001` logic for clarity and minor speed-up.
- Improved documentation and comments (previously, `BLE001` docs claimed
it catches bare `except:`s, but it doesn't).
- Fixed a false-positive bug with `from None` cause:
```python
# somefile.py
try:
pass
except BaseException as e:
raise e from None
```
### main branch
```
somefile.py:3:8: BLE001 Do not catch blind exception: `BaseException`
|
1 | try:
2 | pass
3 | except BaseException as e:
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BLE001
4 | raise e from None
|
Found 1 error.
```
### this change
```cargo run -p ruff -- check somefile.py --no-cache --select=BLE001```
```
All checks passed!
```
## Test Plan
- Added a test case to cover `raise X from Y` clause
- Added a test case to cover `raise X from None` clause
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Add "airflow.secrets.cache.SecretCache" →
"airflow.sdk.cache.SecretCache" rule
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Wei Lee <weilee.rx@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR enhances the `BLE001` rule to correctly detect blind exception
handling in tuple exceptions. Previously, the rule only checked single
exception types, but Python allows catching multiple exceptions using
tuples like `except (Exception, ValueError):`.
## Test Plan
It fails the following (whereas the main branch does not):
```bash
cargo run -p ruff -- check somefile.py --no-cache --select=BLE001
```
```python
# somefile.py
try:
1/0
except (ValueError, Exception) as e:
print(e)
```
```
somefile.py:3:21: BLE001 Do not catch blind exception: `Exception`
|
1 | try:
2 | 1/0
3 | except (ValueError, Exception) as e:
| ^^^^^^^^^ BLE001
4 | print(e)
|
Found 1 error.
```
## Summary
When splitting triple-quoted, raw strings one has to take care before attempting to make each item have single-quotes.
Fixes#19577
---------
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@gmail.com>
Issue: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/19498
## Summary
[missing-required-import](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/missing-required-import/)
inserts the missing import on the line immediately following the last
line of the docstring. However, if the dosctring is immediately followed
by a continuation token (i.e. backslash) then this leads to a syntax
error because Python interprets the docstring and the inserted import to
be on the same line.
The proposed solution in this PR is to check if the first token after a
file docstring is a continuation character, and if so, to advance an
additional line before inserting the missing import.
## Test Plan
Added a unit test, and the following example was verified manually:
Given this simple test Python file:
```python
"Hello, World!"\
print(__doc__)
```
and this ruff linting configuration in the `pyproject.toml` file:
```toml
[tool.ruff.lint]
select = ["I"]
[tool.ruff.lint.isort]
required-imports = ["import sys"]
```
Without the changes in this PR, the ruff linter would try to insert the
missing import in line 2, resulting in a syntax error, and report the
following:
`error: Fix introduced a syntax error. Reverting all changes.`
With the changes in this PR, ruff correctly advances one more line
before adding the missing import, resulting in the following output:
```python
"Hello, World!"\
import sys
print(__doc__)
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Jim Hoekstra <jim.hoekstra@pacmed.nl>
## Summary
Fixes#19385.
Based on [unnecessary-placeholder
(PIE790)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/unnecessary-placeholder/)
behavior, [ellipsis-in-non-empty-class-body
(PYI013)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/ellipsis-in-non-empty-class-body/)
now safely preserve inline comment on ellipsis removal.
## Test Plan
A new test class was added:
```python
class NonEmptyChildWithInlineComment:
value: int
... # preserve me
```
with the following expected fix:
```python
class NonEmptyChildWithInlineComment:
value: int
# preserve me
```
## Summary
Resolves#19531
I've implemented a check to determine whether the for_stmt target is
declared as global or nonlocal. I believe we should skip the rule in all
such cases, since variables declared this way are intended for use
outside the loop scope, making value changes expected behavior.
## Test Plan
Added two test cases for global and nonlocal variable to snapshot.
## Summary
Fixes#18844
I'm not too sure if the solution is as simple as the way I implemented
it, but I'm curious to see if we are covering all cases correctly here.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
As of [this cpython PR](https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/135996),
it is not allowed to concatenate t-strings with non-t-strings,
implicitly or explicitly. Expressions such as `"foo" t"{bar}"` are now
syntax errors.
This PR updates some AST nodes and parsing to reflect this change.
The structural change is that `TStringPart` is no longer needed, since,
as in the case of `BytesStringLiteral`, the only possibilities are that
we have a single `TString` or a vector of such (representing an implicit
concatenation of t-strings). This removes a level of nesting from many
AST expressions (which is what all the snapshot changes reflect), and
simplifies some logic in the implementation of visitors, for example.
The other change of note is in the parser. When we meet an implicit
concatenation of string-like literals, we now count the number of
t-string literals. If these do not exhaust the total number of
implicitly concatenated pieces, then we emit a syntax error. To recover
from this syntax error, we encode any t-string pieces as _invalid_
string literals (which means we flag them as invalid, record their
range, and record the value as `""`). Note that if at least one of the
pieces is an f-string we prefer to parse the entire string as an
f-string; otherwise we parse it as a string.
This logic is exactly the same as how we currently treat
`BytesStringLiteral` parsing and error recovery - and carries with it
the same pros and cons.
Finally, note that I have not implemented any changes in the
implementation of the formatter. As far as I can tell, none are needed.
I did change a few of the fixtures so that we are always concatenating
t-strings with t-strings.
## Summary
Changing `BLE001` (blind-except) so that it does not flag `except`
clauses which include `logging.critical(..., exc_info=True)`.
## Test Plan
It passes the following (whereas the `main` branch does not):
```sh
$ cargo run -p ruff -- check somefile.py --no-cache --select=BLE001
```
```python
# somefile.py
import logging
try:
print("Hello world!")
except Exception:
logging.critical("Did not run.", exc_info=True)
```
Related: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/19519
## Summary
Expand cases in which ruff can offer a fix for `RUF039` (some of which
are unsafe).
While turning `"\n"` (== `\n`) into `r"\n"` (== `\\n`) is not equivalent
at run-time, it's still functionally equivalent to do so in the context
of [regex
patterns](https://docs.python.org/3/library/re.html#regular-expression-syntax)
as they themselves interpret the escape sequence. Therefore, an unsafe
fix can be offered.
Further, this PR also makes ruff offer fixes for byte string literals,
not only strings literals as before.
## Test Plan
Tests for all escape sequences have been added.
## Related
Closes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16713
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
The generated fix for `RUF033` would cause a syntax error for named
expressions as parameter defaults.
```python
from dataclasses import InitVar, dataclass
@dataclass
class Foo:
def __post_init__(self, bar: int = (x := 1)) -> None:
pass
```
would be turned into
```python
from dataclasses import InitVar, dataclass
@dataclass
class Foo:
x: InitVar[int] = x := 1
def __post_init__(self, bar: int = (x := 1)) -> None:
pass
```
instead of the syntactically correct
```python
# ...
x: InitVar[int] = (x := 1)
# ...
```
## Test Plan
Test reproducer (plus some extra tests) have been added to the test
suite.
## Related
Fixes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18950
## Summary
closes#19204
## Test Plan
1. test case is added in dedicated file
2. locally tested the code manually
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: CodeMan62 <sharmahimanshu150082007@gmail.com>
Parsing the (invalid) expression `f"{\t"i}"` caused a panic because the
`TStringMiddle` character was "unreachable" due the way the parser
recovered from the line continuation (it ate the t-string start).
The cause of the issue is as follows:
The parser begins parsing the f-string and expects to see a list of
objects, essentially alternating between _interpolated elements_ and
ordinary strings. It is happy to see the first left brace, but then
there is a lexical error caused by the line-continuation character. So
instead of the parser seeing a list of elements with just one member, it
sees a list that starts like this:
- Interpolated element with an invalid token, stored as a `Name`
- Something else built from tokens beginning with `TStringStart` and
`TStringMiddle`
When it sees the `TStringStart` error recovery says "that's a list
element I don't know what to do with, let's skip it". When it sees
`TStringMiddle` it says "oh, that looks like the middle of _some
interpolated string_ so let's try to parse it as one of the literal
elements of my `FString`". Unfortunately, the function being used to
parse individual list elements thinks (arguably correctly) that it's not
possible to have a `TStringMiddle` sitting in your `FString`, and hits
`unreachable`.
Two potential ways (among many) to solve this issue are:
1. Allow a `TStringMiddle` as a valid "literal" part of an f-string
during parsing (with the hope/understanding that this would only occur
in an invalid context)
2. Skip the `TStringMiddle` as an "unexpected/invalid list item" in the
same way that we skipped `TStringStart`.
I have opted for the second approach since it seems somehow more morally
correct, even though it loses more information. To implement this, the
recovery context needs to know whether we are in an f-string or t-string
- hence the changes to that enum. As a bonus we get slightly more
specific error messages in some cases.
Closes#18860
Dan Parizher
Lior Weissman
Kot
Amethyst Reese
Takayuki Maeda
Wei Lee
Hamir Mahal
Brent Westbrook
chiri
Dylan
Max Mynter
Igor Drokin
Frazer McLean
Roman Kitaev
Sneha Prabhu
Micha Reiser
Jim Hoekstra
Thomas Mattone
Elliot Simpson
Robsdedude
हिमांशु
frank