<!--
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? -->
This PR fixes#7172 by suppressing the fixes for
[docstring-missing-returns
(DOC201)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/docstring-missing-returns/#docstring-missing-returns-doc201)
/ [docstring-extraneous-returns
(DOC202)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/docstring-extraneous-returns/#docstring-extraneous-returns-doc202)
if there is a surrounding line continuation character `\` that would
make the fix cause a syntax error.
To do this, the lints are changed from `AlwaysFixableViolation` to
`Violation` with `FixAvailability::Sometimes`.
In the case of `DOC201`, the fix is not given if the non-break line ends
in a line continuation character `\`. Note that lines are iterated in
reverse from the docstring to the function definition.
In the case of `DOC202`, the fix is not given if the docstring ends with
a line continuation character `\`.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Added a test case.
<!--
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#18908
<!--
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? -->
From @ntBre
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18906#discussion_r2162843366 :
> This could be a good target for a follow-up PR, but we could fold
these `if checker.is_rule_enabled { checker.report_diagnostic` checks
into calls to `checker.report_diagnostic_if_enabled`. I didn't notice
these when adding that method.
>
> Also, the docs on `Checker::report_diagnostic_if_enabled` and
`LintContext::report_diagnostic_if_enabled` are outdated now that the
`Rule` conversion is basically free 😅
>
> No pressure to take on this refactor, just an idea if you're
interested!
This PR folds those calls. I also updated the doc comments by copying
from `report_diagnostic`.
Note: It seems odd to me that the doc comment for `Checker` says
`Diagnostic` while `LintContext` says `OldDiagnostic`, not sure if that
needs a bigger docs change to fix the inconsistency.
<details>
<summary>Python script to do the changes</summary>
This script assumes it is placed in the top level `ruff` directory (ie
next to `.git`/`crates`/`README.md`)
```py
import re
from copy import copy
from pathlib import Path
ruff_crates = Path(__file__).parent / "crates"
for path in ruff_crates.rglob("**/*.rs"):
with path.open(encoding="utf-8", newline="") as f:
original_content = f.read()
if "is_rule_enabled" not in original_content or "report_diagnostic" not in original_content:
continue
original_content_position = 0
changed_content = ""
for match in re.finditer(r"(?m)(?:^[ \n]*|(?<=(?P<else>else )))if[ \n]+checker[ \n]*\.is_rule_enabled\([ \n]*Rule::\w+[ \n]*\)[ \n]*{[ \n]*checker\.report_diagnostic\(", original_content):
# Content between last match and start of this one is unchanged
changed_content += original_content[original_content_position:match.start()]
# If this was an else if, a { needs to be added at the start
if match.group("else"):
changed_content += "{"
# This will result in bad formatting, but the precommit cargo format will handle it
changed_content += "checker.report_diagnostic_if_enabled("
# Depth tracking would fail if a string/comment included a { or }, but unlikely given the context
depth = 1
position = match.end()
while depth > 0:
if original_content[position] == "{":
depth += 1
if original_content[position] == "}":
depth -= 1
position += 1
# pos - 1 is the closing }
changed_content += original_content[match.end():position - 1]
# If this was an else if, a } needs to be added at the end
if match.group("else"):
changed_content += "}"
# Skip the closing }
original_content_position = position
if original_content[original_content_position] == "\n":
# If the } is followed by a \n, also skip it for better formatting
original_content_position += 1
# Add remaining content between last match and file end
changed_content += original_content[original_content_position:]
with path.open("w", encoding="utf-8", newline="") as f:
f.write(changed_content)
```
</details>
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected.
## Summary
This PR avoids one of the three calls to `NoqaCode::rule` from
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391 by applying per-file
ignores in the `LintContext`. To help with this, it also replaces all
direct uses of `LinterSettings.rules.enabled` with a
`LintContext::enabled` (or `Checker::enabled`, which defers to its
context) method. There are still some direct accesses to
`settings.rules`, but as far as I can tell these are not in a part of
the code where we can really access a `LintContext`. I believe all of
the code reachable from `check_path`, where the replaced per-file ignore
code was, should be converted to the new methods.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, with a single snapshot updated for RUF100, which I think
actually shows a more accurate diagnostic message now.
Summary
--
This PR unifies the remaining differences between `OldDiagnostic` and
`Message` (`OldDiagnostic` was only missing an optional `noqa_offset`
field) and
replaces `Message` with `OldDiagnostic`.
The biggest functional difference is that the combined `OldDiagnostic`
kind no
longer implements `AsRule` for an infallible conversion to `Rule`. This
was
pretty easy to work around with `is_some_and` and `is_none_or` in the
few places
it was needed. In `LintContext::report_diagnostic_if_enabled` we can
just use
the new `Violation::rule` method, which takes care of most cases.
Most of the interesting changes are in [this
range](8156992540)
before I started renaming.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
Future Work
--
I think it's time to start shifting some of these fields to the new
`Diagnostic`
kind. I believe we want `Fix` for sure, but I'm less sure about the
others. We
may want to keep a thin wrapper type here anyway to implement a `rule`
method,
so we could leave some of these fields on that too.
Summary
--
This PR adds a `DiagnosticGuard` type to ruff that is adapted from the
`DiagnosticGuard` and `LintDiagnosticGuard` types from ty. This guard is
returned by `Checker::report_diagnostic` and derefs to a
`ruff_diagnostics::Diagnostic` (`OldDiagnostic`), allowing methods like
`OldDiagnostic::set_fix` to be called on the result. On `Drop` the
`DiagnosticGuard` pushes its contained `OldDiagnostic` to the `Checker`.
The main motivation for this is to make a following PR adding a
`SourceFile` to each diagnostic easier. For every rule where a `Checker`
is available, this will now only require modifying
`Checker::report_diagnostic` rather than all the rules.
In the few cases where we need to create a diagnostic before we know if
we actually want to emit it, there is a `DiagnosticGuard::defuse`
method, which consumes the guard without emitting the diagnostic. I was
able to restructure about half of the rules that naively called this to
avoid calling it, but a handful of rules still need it.
One of the fairly common patterns where `defuse` was needed initially
was something like
```rust
let diagnostic = Diagnostic::new(DiagnosticKind, range);
if !checker.enabled(diagnostic.rule()) {
return;
}
```
So I also added a `Checker::checked_report_diagnostic` method that
handles this check internally. That helped to avoid some additional
`defuse` calls. The name is a bit repetitive, so I'm definitely open to
suggestions there. I included a warning against using it in the docs
since, as we've seen, the conversion from a diagnostic to a rule is
actually pretty expensive.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
<!--
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
I decided to disable the new
[`needless_continue`](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#needless_continue)
rule because I often found the explicit `continue` more readable over an
empty block or having to invert the condition of an other branch.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
This came up in https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16477
It's not obvious from the D417 rule's documentation that it only checks
docstrings
with an arguments section. Functions without such a section aren't
checked.
This PR tries to make this clearer in the documentation.
## Summary
Fixes#16007. The logic from the last fix for this (#9427) was
sufficient, it just wasn't being applied because `Attributes` sections
aren't expected to have nested sections. I just deleted the outer
conditional, which should hopefully fix this for all section types.
## Test Plan
New regression test, plus the existing D417 tests.
This very large PR changes the field `.diagnostics` in the `Checker`
from a `Vec<Diagnostic>` to a `RefCell<Vec<Diagnostic>>`, adds methods
to push new diagnostics to this cell, and then removes unnecessary
mutability throughout all of our lint rule implementations.
Consequently, the compiler may now enforce what was, till now, the
_convention_ that the only changes to the `Checker` that can happen
during a lint are the addition of diagnostics[^1].
The PR is best reviewed commit-by-commit. I have tried to keep the large
commits limited to "bulk actions that you can easily see are performing
the same find/replace on a large number of files", and separate anything
ad-hoc or with larger diffs. Please let me know if there's anything else
I can do to make this easier to review!
Many thanks to [`ast-grep`](https://github.com/ast-grep/ast-grep),
[`helix`](https://github.com/helix-editor/helix), and good ol'
fashioned`git` magic, without which this PR would have taken the rest of
my natural life.
[^1]: And randomly also the seen variables violating `flake8-bugbear`?
Instead of doing this on a lint-by-lint basis, we now just do it right
before rendering. This is more broadly applicable.
Note that this doesn't fix the diagnostic rendering for the Python
parser. But that's using a different path anyway (`annotate-snippets` is
only used in tests).
Previously, these were pointing to the right place, but were missing the
`^`. With the `annotate-snippets` upgrade, the `^` was added, but they
started pointing to the end of the previous line instead of the
beginning of the following line. In this case, we really want it to
point to the beginning of the following line since we're calling out
indentation issues.
As in a prior commit, we fix this by tweaking the offsets emitted by the
lint itself. Instead of an empty range at the beginning of the line, we
point to the first character in the line. This "forces" the renderer to
point to the beginning of the line instead of the end of the preceding
line.
The end effect here is that the rendering is fixed by adding `^` in the
proper location.
It's hard to grok the change from the snapshot diffs alone, so here's
one example. Before:
PYI021.pyi:15:5: PYI021 [*] Docstrings should not be included in stubs
|
14 | class Baz:
15 | """Multiline docstring
| _____^
16 | |
17 | | Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
18 | | """
| |_______^ PYI021
19 |
20 | def __init__(self) -> None: ...
|
= help: Remove docstring
And now after:
PYI021.pyi:15:5: PYI021 [*] Docstrings should not be included in stubs
|
14 | class Baz:
15 | / """Multiline docstring
16 | |
17 | | Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
18 | | """
| |_______^ PYI021
19 |
20 | def __init__(self) -> None: ...
|
= help: Remove docstring
I personally think both of these are fine. If we felt strongly, I could
investigate reverting to the old style, but the new style seems okay to
me.
In other words, these updates I believe are just cosmetic and not a bug
fix.
These snapshot changes should *all* only be a result of changes to
trailing whitespace in the output. I checked a psuedo random sample of
these, and the whitespace found in the previous snapshots seems to be an
artifact of the rendering and _not_ of the source data. So this seems
like a strict bug fix to me.
There are other snapshots with whitespace changes, but they also have
other changes that we split out into separate commits. Basically, we're
going to do approximately one commit per category of change.
This represents, by far, the biggest chunk of changes to snapshots as a
result of the `annotate-snippets` upgrade.
## Summary
This PR fixes an issue where Ruff's `D403` rule
(`first-word-uncapitalized`) was not detecting some single-word edge
cases that are picked up by `pydocstyle`.
The change involves extracting the first word of the docstring by
identifying the first whitespace character. This is consistent with
`pydocstyle` which uses `.split()` - see
8d0cdfc93e/src/pydocstyle/checker.py (L581C13-L581C64)
## Example
Here is a playground example -
https://play.ruff.rs/eab9ea59-92cf-4e44-b1a9-b54b7f69b178
```py
def example1():
"""foo"""
def example2():
"""foo
Hello world!
"""
def example3():
"""foo bar
Hello world!
"""
def example4():
"""
foo
"""
def example5():
"""
foo bar
"""
```
`pydocstyle` detects all five cases:
```bash
$ pydocstyle test.py --select D403
dev/test.py:2 in public function `example1`:
D403: First word of the first line should be properly capitalized ('Foo', not 'foo')
dev/test.py:5 in public function `example2`:
D403: First word of the first line should be properly capitalized ('Foo', not 'foo')
dev/test.py:11 in public function `example3`:
D403: First word of the first line should be properly capitalized ('Foo', not 'foo')
dev/test.py:17 in public function `example4`:
D403: First word of the first line should be properly capitalized ('Foo', not 'foo')
dev/test.py:22 in public function `example5`:
D403: First word of the first line should be properly capitalized ('Foo', not 'foo')
```
Ruff (`0.8.4`) fails to catch example2 and example4.
## Test Plan
* Added two new test cases to cover the previously missed single-word
docstring cases.
This PR introduces three changes to `D403`, which has to do with
capitalizing the first word in a docstring.
1. The diagnostic and fix now skip leading whitespace when determining
what counts as "the first word".
2. The name has been changed to `first-word-uncapitalized` from
`first-line-capitalized`, for both clarity and compliance with our rule
naming policy.
3. The diagnostic message and documentation has been modified slightly
to reflect this.
Closes#14890
GiGaGon
Dan Parizher
Victor Hugo Gomes
Brent Westbrook
Micha Reiser
Vasco Schiavo
Carl Meyer
Alex Waygood
Dylan
Andrew Gallant
Charlie Marsh
InSync
Enoch Kan
my1e5
Matt Norton
Simon Brugman
Dhruv Manilawala
ukyen
yahayaohinoyi
Alex Lowe
renovate[bot]