<!--
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
/closes #2331
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
update snapshots
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
Resolves#18165
Added pattern `["sys", "version_info", "major"]` to the existing matches
for `sys.version_info` to ensure consistent handling of both the base
object and its major version attribute.
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run` and `cargo insta test`
---------
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
/closes #17424
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
The fix would create a syntax error if there wasn't a space between the
`in` keyword and the following expression.
For example:
```python
for country, stars in(zip)(flag_stars.keys(), flag_stars.values()):...
```
I also noticed that the tests for `SIM911` were note being run, so I
fixed that.
Fixes#18776
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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 PR fixes `PLC2801` autofix creating a syntax error due to lack of
padding if it is directly after a keyword.
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18813
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
I've also found another bug while fixing this, where the diagnostic
would not trigger if the `len` call argument variable was shadowed. This
fixed a few false negatives in the test cases.
Example:
```python
fruits = []
fruits = []
if len(fruits): # comment
...
```
Fixes#18811Fixes#18812
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <crmarsh416@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
Fix `PYI041`'s fix turning `None | int | None | float` into `None | None
| float`, which raises a `TypeError` when executed.
The fix consists of making sure that the merged super-type is inserted
where the first type that is merged was before.
## Test Plan
Tests have been expanded with examples from the issue.
## Related Issue
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18298
<!--
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
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18726 by also checking if
its a literal and not only that it is truthy. See also the first comment
in the issue.
It would have been nice to check for inheritance of BaseException but I
figured that is not possible yet...
## Test Plan
I added a few tests for valid input to exc_info
## Summary
Ignore `__init__.py` files in `useless-import-alias` (PLC0414).
See discussion in #18365 and #6294: we want to allow redundant aliases
in `__init__.py` files, as they're almost always intentional explicit
re-exports.
Closes#18365Closes#6294
---------
Co-authored-by: Dylan <dylwil3@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
I also noticed that the tests for SIM911 were note being run, so I fixed
that.
Fixes#18777
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Fixes false positives (and incorrect autofixes) in `nested-min-max`
(`PLW3301`) when the outer `min`/`max` call only has a single argument.
Previously the rule would flatten:
```python
min(min([2, 3], [4, 1]))
```
into `min([2, 3], [4, 1])`, changing the semantics. The rule now skips
any nested call when the outer call has only one positional argument.
The pylint fixture and snapshot were updated accordingly.
## Test Plan
Ran Ruff against the updated `nested_min_max.py` fixture:
```shell
cargo run -p ruff -- check crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/nested_min_max.py --no-cache --select=PLW3301 --preview
```
to verify that `min(min([2, 3], [4, 1]))` and `max(max([2, 4], [3, 1]))`
are no longer flagged. Updated the fixture and snapshot; all other
existing warnings remain unchanged. The code compiles and the unit tests
pass.
---
This PR was generated by an AI system in collaboration with maintainers:
@carljm, @ntBre
Fixes#16163
---------
Signed-off-by: Gene Parmesan Thomas <201852096+gopoto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
Added `cls.__dict__.get('__annotations__')` check for Python 3.10+ and
Python < 3.10 with `typing-extensions` enabled.
Closes#17853
<!--
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
Added `cls.__dict__.get('__annotations__')` check for Python 3.10+ and
Python < 3.10 with `typing-extensions` enabled.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Essentially this PR ensures that when we do fixes like this:
```diff
- t"{set(f(x) for x in foo)}"
+ t"{ {f(x) for x in foo} }"
```
we are correctly adding whitespace around the braces.
This logic is already in place for f-strings and just needed to be
generalized to interpolated strings.
<!--
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
Fixes#18684
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
/closes #18639
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
update snapshots
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
<!--
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?
-->
This PR aims to close#16605.
## Summary
This PR introduces a new rule (`RUF061`) that detects non-contextmanager
usage of `pytest.raises`, `pytest.warns`, and `pytest.deprecated_call`.
This pattern is discouraged and [was proposed in
flake8-pytest-style](https://github.com/m-burst/flake8-pytest-style/pull/332),
but the corresponding PR has been open for over a month without
activity.
Additionally, this PR provides an unsafe fix for simple cases where the
non-contextmanager form can be transformed into the context manager
form. Examples of supported patterns are listed in `RUF061_raises.py`,
`RUF061_warns.py`, and `RUF061_deprecated_call.py` test files.
The more complex case from the original issue (involving two separate
statements):
```python
excinfo = pytest.raises(ValueError, int, "hello")
assert excinfo.match("^invalid literal")
```
is getting fixed like this:
```python
with pytest.raises(ValueError) as excinfo:
int("hello")
assert excinfo.match("^invalid literal")
```
Putting match in the raises call requires multi-statement
transformation, which I am not sure how to implement.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
New test files were added to cover various usages of the
non-contextmanager form of pytest.raises, warns, and deprecated_call.
<!--
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? -->
Solves #18257
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Snapshots updated with some cases (negative, positive, mixed
annotations).
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18628 by avoiding a fix
if there are "unknown" arguments, including any keyword arguments and
more than the expected 2 positional arguments.
I'm a bit on the fence here because it also seems reasonable to avoid a
diagnostic at all. Especially in the final test case I added (`not
my_dict.get(default=False)`), the hint suggesting to remove
`default=False` seems pretty misleading. At the same time, I guess the
diagnostic at least calls attention to the call site, which could help
to fix the missing argument bug too.
As I commented on the issue, I double-checked that keyword arguments are
invalid as far back as Python 3.8, even though the positional-only
marker was only added to the
[docs](https://docs.python.org/3.11/library/stdtypes.html#dict.get) in
3.12 (link is to 3.11, showing its absence).
## Test Plan
New tests derived from the bug report
## Stabilization
This was planned to be stabilized in 0.12, and the bug is less severe
than some others, but if there's nobody opposed, I will plan **not to
stabilize** this one for now.
<!--
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
Fixes false positive in B909 (`loop-iterator-mutation`) where mutations
inside return/break statements were incorrectly flagged as violations.
The fix adds tracking for when mutations occur within return/break
statements and excludes them from violation detection, as they don't
cause the iteration issues B909 is designed to prevent.
## Test Plan
- Added test cases covering the reported false positive scenarios to
`B909.py`
- Verified existing B909 tests continue to pass (no regressions)
- Ran `cargo test -p ruff_linter --lib flake8_bugbear` successfully
Fixes#18399
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18612 by:
- Bailing out without a fix in the case of `*args`, which I don't think
we can fix reliably
- Using an `Edit::deletion` from `remove_argument` instead of an
`Edit::range_replacement` in the presence of unrecognized keyword
arguments
I thought we could always switch to the `Edit::deletion` approach
initially, but it caused problems when `maxlen` was passed positionally,
which we didn't have any existing tests for.
The replacement fix can easily delete comments, so I also marked the fix
unsafe in these cases and updated the docs accordingly.
## Test Plan
New test cases derived from the issue.
## Stabilization
These are pretty significant changes, much like those to PYI059 in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18611 (and based a bit on the
implementation there!), so I think it probably makes sense to
un-stabilize this for the 0.12 release, but I'm open to other thoughts
there.
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18602 by:
1. Avoiding a fix when `*args` are present
2. Inserting the `Generic` base class right before the first keyword
argument, if one is present
In an intermediate commit, I also had special handling to avoid a fix in
the `**kwargs` case, but this is treated (roughly) as a normal keyword,
and I believe handling it properly falls out of the other keyword fix.
I also updated the `add_argument` utility function to insert new
arguments right before the keyword argument list instead of at the very
end of the argument list. This changed a couple of snapshots unrelated
to `PYI059`, but there shouldn't be any functional changes to other
rules because all other calls to `add_argument` were adding a keyword
argument anyway.
## Test Plan
Existing PYI059 cases, plus new tests based on the issue
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Summary
--
Fixes#18590 by adding parentheses around lambdas and if expressions in
`for` loop iterators for FURB122 and FURB142. I also updated the docs on
the helper function to reflect the part actually being parenthesized and
the new checks.
The `lambda` case actually causes a `TypeError` at runtime, but I think
it's still worth handling to avoid causing a syntax error.
```pycon
>>> s = set()
... for x in (1,) if True else (2,):
... s.add(-x)
... for x in lambda: 0:
... s.discard(-x)
...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<python-input-0>", line 4, in <module>
for x in lambda: 0:
^^^^^^^^^
TypeError: 'function' object is not iterable
```
Test Plan
--
New test cases based on the bug report
---------
Co-authored-by: Dylan <dylwil3@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
Closes#17226.
This PR updates the `FAST003` rule to correctly handle [FastAPI class
dependencies](https://fastapi.tiangolo.com/tutorial/dependencies/classes-as-dependencies/).
Specifically, if a path parameter is declared in either:
- a `pydantic.BaseModel` used as a dependency, or
- the `__init__` method of a class used as a dependency,
then `FAST003` will no longer incorrectly report it as unused.
FastAPI allows a shortcut when using annotated class dependencies -
`Depends` can be called without arguments, e.g.:
```python
class MyParams(BaseModel):
my_id: int
@router.get("/{my_id}")
def get_id(params: Annotated[MyParams, Depends()]): ...
```
This PR ensures that such usage is properly supported by the linter.
Note: Support for dataclasses is not included in this PR. Let me know if
you’d like it to be added.
## Test Plan
Added relevant test cases to the `FAST003.py` fixture.
This PR implements template strings (t-strings) in the parser and
formatter for Ruff.
Minimal changes necessary to compile were made in other parts of the code (e.g. ty, the linter, etc.). These will be covered properly in follow-up PRs.
<!--
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? -->
Follow up on https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18093 and apply it
to AIR312
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The existing test fixtures have been updated
<!--
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? -->
Follow up on https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18093 and apply it
to AIR311
---
Rules fixed
* `airflow.models.datasets.expand_alias_to_datasets` →
`airflow.models.asset.expand_alias_to_assets`
* `airflow.models.baseoperatorlink.BaseOperatorLink` →
`airflow.sdk.BaseOperatorLink`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The existing test fixtures have been updated
<!--
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? -->
Follow up on https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18093 and apply it
to AIR301
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The existing test fixtures have been updated
<!--
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? -->
Add utility functions `generate_import_edit` and
`generate_remove_and_runtime_import_edit` to generate the fix needed for
the airflow rules.
1. `generate_import_edit` is for the cases where the member name has
changed. (e.g., `airflow.datasts.Dataset` to `airflow.sdk.Asset`) It's
just extracted from the original logic
2. `generate_remove_and_runtime_import_edit` is for cases where the
member name has not changed. (e.g.,
`airflow.operators.pig_operator.PigOperator` to
`airflow.providers.apache.pig.hooks.pig.PigCliHook`) This is newly
introduced. As it introduced runtime import, I mark it as an unsafe fix.
Under the hook, it tried to find the original import statement, remove
it, and add a new import fix
---
* rules fix
* `airflow.sensors.external_task_sensor.ExternalTaskSensorLink` →
`airflow.providers.standard.sensors.external_task.ExternalDagLink`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The existing test fixtures have been updated
## Summary
Adds coverage of using set(...) in addition to `{...} in
SingleItemMembershipTest.
Fixes#15792
(and replaces the old PR #15793)
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Updated unit test and snapshot.
Steps to reproduce are in the issue linked above.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
Fixes#18231
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Implements `use-maxsplit-arg` (`PLC0207`)
https://pylint.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_guide/messages/convention/use-maxsplit-arg.html
> Emitted when accessing only the first or last element of str.split().
The first and last element can be accessed by using str.split(sep,
maxsplit=1)[0] or str.rsplit(sep, maxsplit=1)[-1] instead.
This is part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
Additionally compared Ruff output to Pylint:
```
pylint --disable=all --enable=use-maxsplit-arg crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/missing_maxsplit_arg.py
cargo run -p ruff -- check crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/missing_maxsplit_arg.py --no-cache --select PLC0207
```
---------
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
Fixes#18353
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Snapshot 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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
* Remove the following rules
* name
* `airflow.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.is_authorized_dataset` →
`airflow.api_fastapi.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.is_authorized_asset`
*
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.fab_auth_manager.is_authorized_dataset`
→
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.fab_auth_manager.is_authorized_asset`
* Update the following rules
* name
* `airflow.models.baseoperatorlink.BaseOperatorLink` →
`airflow.sdk.BaseOperatorLink`
* `airflow.api_connexion.security.requires_access` → "Use
`airflow.api_fastapi.core_api.security.requires_access_*` instead`"
* `airflow.api_connexion.security.requires_access_dataset`→
`airflow.api_fastapi.core_api.security.requires_access_asset`
* `airflow.notifications.basenotifier.BaseNotifier` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.notifier.BaseNotifier`
* `airflow.www.auth.has_access` → None
* `airflow.www.auth.has_access_dataset` → None
* `airflow.www.utils.get_sensitive_variables_fields`→ None
* `airflow.www.utils.should_hide_value_for_key`→ None
* class attribute
* `airflow..sensors.weekday.DayOfWeekSensor`
* `use_task_execution_day` removed
*
`airflow.providers.amazon.aws.auth_manager.aws_auth_manager.AwsAuthManager`
* `is_authorized_dataset`
* Add the following rules
* class attribute
* `airflow.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.BaseAuthManager` |
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.fab_auth_manager.FabAuthManager`
* name
* `airflow.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.BaseAuthManager` →
`airflow.api_fastapi.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.BaseAuthManager` *
`is_authorized_dataset` → `is_authorized_asset`
* refactor
* simplify unnecessary match with if else
* rename Replacement::Name as Replacement::AttrName
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixtures have been revised and updated.
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
In the later development of Airflow 3.0, backward compatibility was not
added for some cases. Thus, the following rules are moved back to AIR302
* airflow.hooks.subprocess.SubprocessResult →
airflow.providers.standard.hooks.subprocess.SubprocessResult
* airflow.hooks.subprocess.working_directory →
airflow.providers.standard.hooks.subprocess.working_directory
* airflow.operators.datetime.target_times_as_dates →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.datetime.target_times_as_dates
* airflow.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunLink →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunLink
* airflow.sensors.external_task.ExternalTaskSensorLink →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.external_task.ExternalDagLink (**This
one contains a minor change**)
* airflow.sensors.time_delta.WaitSensor →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.time_delta.WaitSensor
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
Fixes#18107
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Fixes#18069
<!--
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 PR addresses a bug in the `flake8-simplify` rule `SIM905`
(split-static-string) where `str.split(maxsplit=0)` and
`str.rsplit(maxsplit=0)` produced incorrect results for empty strings or
strings starting/ending with whitespace. The fix ensures that the
linting rule's suggested replacements now align with Python's native
behavior for these specific `maxsplit=0` scenarios.
## Test Plan
1. Added new test cases to the existing
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/flake8_simplify/SIM905.py`
fixture to cover the scenarios described in issue #18069.
2. Ran `cargo test -p ruff_linter`.
3. Verified and accepted the updated snapshots for `SIM905.py` using
`cargo insta review`. The new snapshots confirm the corrected behavior
for `maxsplit=0`.
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Similiar to https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17941.
`Replacement::Name` was designed for linting only. Now, we also want to
fix the user code. It would be easier to replace it with a better
AutoImport struct whenever possible.
On the other hand, `AIR301` and `AIR311` contain attribute changes that
can still use a struct like `Replacement::Name`. To reduce the
confusion, I also updated it as `Replacement::AttrName`
Some of the original `Replacement::Name` has been replaced as
`Replacement::Message` as they're not directly mapping and the message
has now been moved to `help`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixtures have been updated
<!--
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
Fixes#17599.
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
If a try-catch block guards the names, we don't raise warnings. During
this change, I discovered that some of the replacement types were
missed. Thus, I extend the fix to types other than AutoImport as well
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Test fixtures are added and updated.
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
The existing implementation of RUF060 (InEmptyCollection) is not
recursive, meaning that although set([]) results in an empty collection,
the existing code fails it because set is taking an argument.
The updated implementation allows set and frozenset to take empty
collection as positional argument (which results in empty
set/frozenset).
## Test Plan
Added test cases for recursive cases + updated snapshot (see RUF060.py).
---------
Co-authored-by: Marcus Näslund <marcus.naslund@kognity.com>
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#17776.
This PR also handles all other `PTH*` rules that don't support file
descriptors.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Update 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
We can only guarantee the safety of the autofix for number literals, all
other cases may change the runtime behaviour of the program or introduce
a syntax error. For the cases reported in the issue that would result in
a syntax error, I disabled the autofix.
Follow-up of #17661.
Fixes#16472.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
* `airflow.models.Connection` → `airflow.sdk.Connection`
* `airflow.models.Variable` → `airflow.sdk.Variable`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixtures has been updated (see the first commit for easier
review)
## Summary
Introducing a new rule based on discussions in #15732 and #15729 that
checks for unnecessary in with empty collections.
I called it in_empty_collection and gave the rule number RUF060.
Rule is in preview group.
<!--
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?
-->
Re: #17526
## Summary
Add test fixtures for `AwaitOutsideAsync` and
`AsyncComprehensionOutsideAsyncFunction` errors.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
This is a test.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
Fixes#17798
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Skip attribute check in try catch block (`AIR301`)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/airflow/AIR301_names_try.py`
## Summary
Contains the same changes to the semantic type inference as
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17705.
Fixes#17694
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Snapshot tests.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
Includes minor changes to the semantic type inference to help detect the
return type of function call.
Fixes#17691
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Apply auto fixes to cases where the names have changed in Airflow 3 in
AIR302 and split the huge test cases into different test cases based on
proivder
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
the test cases has been split into multiple for easier checking
This PR promotes the fix applicability of [readlines-in-for
(FURB129)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/readlines-in-for/#readlines-in-for-furb129)
to always safe.
In the original PR (https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/9880), the
author marked the rule as unsafe because Ruff's type inference couldn't
quite guarantee that we had an `IOBase` object in hand. Some false
positives were recorded in the test fixture. However, before the PR was
merged, Charlie added the necessary type inference and the false
positives went away.
According to the [Python
documentation](https://docs.python.org/3/library/io.html#io.IOBase), I
believe this fix is safe for any proper implementation of `IOBase`:
>[IOBase](https://docs.python.org/3/library/io.html#io.IOBase) (and its
subclasses) supports the iterator protocol, meaning that an
[IOBase](https://docs.python.org/3/library/io.html#io.IOBase) object can
be iterated over yielding the lines in a stream. Lines are defined
slightly differently depending on whether the stream is a binary stream
(yielding bytes), or a text stream (yielding character strings). See
[readline()](https://docs.python.org/3/library/io.html#io.IOBase.readline)
below.
and then in the [documentation for
`readlines`](https://docs.python.org/3/library/io.html#io.IOBase.readlines):
>Read and return a list of lines from the stream. hint can be specified
to control the number of lines read: no more lines will be read if the
total size (in bytes/characters) of all lines so far exceeds hint. [...]
>Note that it’s already possible to iterate on file objects using for
line in file: ... without calling file.readlines().
I believe that a careful reading of our [versioning
policy](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/versioning/#version-changes)
requires that this change be deferred to a minor release - but please
correct me if I'm wrong!
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Add "airflow.operators.python.get_current_context" →
"airflow.sdk.get_current_context" rule
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
the test fixture has been updated accordingly
## Summary
Even though the original suggestion works, they've been removed in later
version and is no longer the best practices.
e.g., many sql realted operators have been removed and are now suggested
to use SQLExecuteQueryOperator instead
## Test Plan
The existing test fixtures have been updated
Summary
--
While going through the syntax errors in [this comment], I was surprised
to see the error `name 'x' is assigned to before global declaration`,
which corresponds to [load-before-global-declaration (PLE0118)] and has
also been reimplemented as a syntax error (#17135). However, it looks
like neither of the implementations consider `global` declarations in
the top-level module scope, which is a syntax error in CPython:
```python
# try.py
x = None
global x
```
```shell
> python -m compileall -f try.py
Compiling 'try.py'...
*** File "try.py", line 2
global x
^^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: name 'x' is assigned to before global declaration
```
I'm not sure this is the best or most elegant solution, but it was a
quick fix that passed all of our tests.
Test Plan
--
New PLE0118 test case.
[this comment]:
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7633#issuecomment-1740424031
[load-before-global-declaration (PLE0118)]:
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/load-before-global-declaration/#load-before-global-declaration-ple0118
## Summary
Apply auto fixes to cases where the names have changed in Airflow 3
## Test Plan
Add `AIR301_names_fix.py` and `AIR301_provider_names_fix.py` test fixtures
This is an implementation of the discussion from #16719.
This change will allow list function calls to be replaced with
comprehensions:
```python
result = list()
for i in range(3):
result.append(i + 1)
# becomes
result = [i + 1 for i in range(3)]
```
I added a new test to `PERF401.py` to verify that this fix will now work
for `list()`.
The PR fixes#16457 .
Specifically, `FURB161` is marked safe, but the rule generates safe
fixes only in specific cases. Therefore, we attempt to mark the fix as
unsafe when we are not in one of these cases.
For instances, the fix is marked as aunsafe just in case of strings (as
pointed out in the issue). Let me know if I should change something.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
This change adds an auto-fix for manual dict comprehensions. It also
copies many of the improvements from #13919 (and associated PRs fixing
issues with it), and moves some of the utility functions from
`manual_list_comprehension.rs` into a separate `helpers.rs` to be used
in both.
## Test Plan
I added a preview test case to showcase the new fix and added a test
case in `PERF403.py` to make sure lines with semicolons function. I
didn't yet make similar tests to the ones I added earlier to
`PERF401.py`, but the logic is the same, so it might be good to add
those to make sure they work.
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
* Extend the following AIR311 rules
* `airflow.io.path.ObjectStoragePath` → `airflow.sdk.ObjectStoragePath`
* `airflow.io.storage.attach` → `airflow.sdk.io.attach`
* `airflow.models.dag.DAG` → `airflow.sdk.DAG`
* `airflow.models.DAG` → `airflow.sdk.DAG`
* `airflow.decorators.dag` → `airflow.sdk.dag`
* `airflow.decorators.task` → `airflow.sdk.task`
* `airflow.decorators.task_group` → `airflow.sdk.task_group`
* `airflow.decorators.setup` → `airflow.sdk.setup`
* `airflow.decorators.teardown` → `airflow.sdk.teardown`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test case has been added to the button of the existing test
fixtures, confirmed to be correct and later reorgnaized
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
As discussed in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/14626#issuecomment-2766146129,
we're to separate suggested changes from required changes.
The following symbols have been moved to AIR311 from AIR301. They still
work in Airflow 3.0, but they're suggested to be changed as they're
expected to be removed in a future version.
* arguments
* `airflow..DAG | dag`
* `sla_miss_callback`
* operators
* `sla`
* name
* `airflow.Dataset] | [airflow.datasets.Dataset` → `airflow.sdk.Asset`
* `airflow.datasets, rest @ ..`
* `DatasetAlias` → `airflow.sdk.AssetAlias`
* `DatasetAll` → `airflow.sdk.AssetAll`
* `DatasetAny` → `airflow.sdk.AssetAny`
* `expand_alias_to_datasets` → `airflow.sdk.expand_alias_to_assets`
* `metadata.Metadata` → `airflow.sdk.Metadata`
<!--airflow.models.baseoperator-->
* `airflow.models.baseoperator.chain` → `airflow.sdk.chain`
* `airflow.models.baseoperator.chain_linear` →
`airflow.sdk.chain_linear`
* `airflow.models.baseoperator.cross_downstream` →
`airflow.sdk.cross_downstream`
* `airflow.models.baseoperatorlink.BaseOperatorLink` →
`airflow.sdk.definitions.baseoperatorlink.BaseOperatorLink`
* `airflow.timetables, rest @ ..`
* `datasets.DatasetOrTimeSchedule` → *
`airflow.timetables.assets.AssetOrTimeSchedule`
* `airflow.utils, rest @ ..`
<!--airflow.utils.dag_parsing_context-->
* `dag_parsing_context.get_parsing_context` →
`airflow.sdk.get_parsing_context`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixture has been updated acccordingly
Summary
--
This PR implements detecting the use of `await` expressions outside of
async functions. This is a reimplementation of
[await-outside-async
(PLE1142)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/await-outside-async/) as a
semantic syntax error.
Despite the rule name, PLE1142 also applies to `async for` and `async
with`, so these are covered here too.
Test Plan
--
Existing PLE1142 tests.
I also deleted more code from the `SemanticSyntaxCheckerVisitor` to
avoid changes in other parser tests.
Summary
--
This PR reimplements [yield-outside-function
(F704)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/yield-outside-function/) as a
semantic syntax error. Despite the name, this rule covers `yield from`
and `await` in addition to `yield`.
Test Plan
--
New linter tests, along with the existing F704 test.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
attribute check was missing in the previous implementation
e.g.
```python
from airflow.api.auth.backend import basic_auth
basic_auth.auth_current_user
```
This PR adds this kind of check.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test case has been added to the button of the existing test
fixtures, confirmed to be correct and later reorgnaized
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
As discussed in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/14626#issuecomment-2766146129,
we're to separate suggested changes from required changes.
The following symbols has been moved to AIR312 from AIR302. They still
work in Airflow 3.0, but they're suggested to be changed as they're
expected to be removed in future version
```python
from airflow.hooks.filesystem import FSHook
from airflow.hooks.package_index import PackageIndexHook
from airflow.hooks.subprocess import (SubprocessHook, SubprocessResult, working_directory)
from airflow.operators.bash import BashOperator
from airflow.operators.datetime import BranchDateTimeOperator, target_times_as_dates
from airflow.operators.trigger_dagrun import TriggerDagRunLink, TriggerDagRunOperator
from airflow.operators.empty import EmptyOperator
from airflow.operators.latest_only import LatestOnlyOperator
from airflow.operators.python import (BranchPythonOperator, PythonOperator, PythonVirtualenvOperator, ShortCircuitOperator)
from airflow.operators.weekday import BranchDayOfWeekOperator
from airflow.sensors.date_time import DateTimeSensor, DateTimeSensorAsync
from airflow.sensors.external_task import ExternalTaskMarker, ExternalTaskSensor, ExternalTaskSensorLink
from airflow.sensors.filesystem import FileSensor
from airflow.sensors.time_sensor import TimeSensor, TimeSensorAsync
from airflow.sensors.time_delta import TimeDeltaSensor, TimeDeltaSensorAsync, WaitSensor
from airflow.sensors.weekday import DayOfWeekSensor
from airflow.triggers.external_task import DagStateTrigger, WorkflowTrigger
from airflow.triggers.file import FileTrigger
from airflow.triggers.temporal import DateTimeTrigger, TimeDeltaTrigger
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixture has been updated acccordingly
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
This fix closes#16868
I noticed the issue is assigned, but the assignee appears to be actively
working on another pull request. I hope that’s okay!
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
As of Python 3.11.1, `enum.auto()` can be used in multiple assignments.
This pattern should not trigger non-unique-enums check.
Reference: [Python docs on
enum.auto()](https://docs.python.org/3/library/enum.html#enum.auto)
This fix updates the check logic to skip enum variant statements where
the right-hand side is a tuple containing a call to `enum.auto()`.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The added test case uses the example from the original issue. It
previously triggered a false positive, but now passes successfully.
Summary
--
Detect async comprehensions nested in sync comprehensions in async
functions before Python 3.11, when this was [changed].
The actual logic of this rule is very straightforward, but properly
tracking the async scopes took a bit of work. An alternative to the
current approach is to offload the `in_async_context` check into the
`SemanticSyntaxContext` trait, but that actually required much more
extensive changes to the `TestContext` and also to ruff's semantic
model, as you can see in the changes up to
31554b473507034735bd410760fde6341d54a050. This version has the benefit
of mostly centralizing the state tracking in `SemanticSyntaxChecker`,
although there was some subtlety around deferred function body traversal
that made the changes to `Checker` more intrusive too (hence the new
linter test).
The `Checkpoint` struct/system is obviously overkill for now since it's
only tracking a single `bool`, but I thought it might be more useful
later.
[changed]: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/77527
Test Plan
--
New inline tests and a new linter integration test.
## Summary
### Improvement
Expand the following moved module into individual symbols.
* airflow.triggers.temporal
* airflow.triggers.file
* airflow.triggers.external_task
* airflow.hooks.subprocess
* airflow.hooks.package_index
* airflow.hooks.filesystem
* airflow.sensors.weekday
* airflow.sensors.time_delta
* airflow.sensors.time_sensor
* airflow.sensors.date_time
* airflow.operators.weekday
* airflow.operators.datetime
* airflow.operators.bash
This removes `Replacement::ImportPathMoved`.
## Fix
During the expansion, the following paths were also fixed
* airflow.sensors.s3_key_sensor.S3KeySensor →
airflow.providers.amazon.aws.sensors.S3KeySensor
* airflow.operators.sql.SQLThresholdCheckOperator →
airflow.providers.common.sql.operators.sql.SQLThresholdCheckOperator
* airflow.hooks.druid_hook.DruidDbApiHook →
airflow.providers.apache.druid.hooks.druid.DruidDbApiHook
* airflow.hooks.druid_hook.DruidHook →
airflow.providers.apache.druid.hooks.druid.DruidHook
* airflow.kubernetes.pod_generator.extend_object_field →
airflow.providers.cncf.kubernetes.pod_generator.extend_object_field
* airflow.kubernetes.pod_launcher.PodLauncher →
airflow.providers.cncf.kubernetes.pod_launcher_deprecated.PodLauncher
* airflow.kubernetes.pod_launcher.PodStatus →
airflow.providers.cncf.kubernetes.pod_launcher_deprecated.PodStatus
* airflow.kubernetes.pod_generator.PodDefaults →
airflow.providers.cncf.kubernetes.pod_generator.PodDefaults
* airflow.kubernetes.pod_launcher_deprecated.PodDefaults →
airflow.providers.cncf.kubernetes.pod_launcher_deprecated.PodDefaults
### Refactor
As many symbols are moved into the same module,
`SourceModuleMovedToProvider` is introduced for grouping similar logic
## Test Plan
This fix closes#17026
## Summary
The check for the `PytestRaisesTooBroad` rule is now skipped if there is
a second positional argument present, which means `pytest.raises` is
used as a function.
## Test Plan
Tested on the example from the issue, which now passes the check.
```Python3
pytest.raises(Exception, func, *func_args, **func_kwargs).match("error message")
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Closes#17042
## Summary
This PR fixes the issue outlined in #17042 where RUF100 (unused-noqa)
fails to detect unused file-level noqa directives (`# ruff: noqa` or `#
ruff: noqa: {code}`).
The issue stems from two underlying causes:
1. For blanket file-level directives (`# ruff: noqa`), there's a
circular dependency: the directive exempts all rules including RUF100
itself, which prevents checking for usage. This isn't changed by this
PR. I would argue it is intendend behavior - a blanket `# ruff: noqa`
directive should exempt all rules including RUF100 itself.
2. For code-specific file-level directives (e.g. `# ruff: noqa: F841`),
the handling was missing in the `check_noqa` function. This is added in
this PR.
## Notes
- For file-level directives, the `matches` array is pre-populated with
the specified codes during parsing, unlike line-level directives which
only populate their `matches` array when actually suppressing
diagnostics. This difference requires the somewhat clunky handling of
both cases. I would appreciate guidance on a cleaner design :)
- A more fundamental solution would be to change how file-level
directives initialize the `matches` array in
`FileNoqaDirectives::extract()`, but that requires more substantial
changes as it breaks existing functionality. I suspect discussions in
#16483 are relevant for this.
## Test Plan
- Local verification
- Added a test case and fixture
## Summary
Some of the migration rules has been changed during Airflow 3
development. The following are new AIR302 rules. Corresponding AIR301
has also been removed.
* airflow.sensors.external_task_sensor.ExternalTaskMarker →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.external_task.ExternalTaskMarker
* airflow.sensors.external_task_sensor.ExternalTaskSensor →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.external_task.ExternalTaskSensor
* airflow.sensors.external_task_sensor.ExternalTaskSensorLink →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.external_task.ExternalTaskSensorLink
* airflow.sensors.time_delta_sensor.TimeDeltaSensor →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.time_delta.TimeDeltaSensor
* airflow.operators.dagrun_operator.TriggerDagRunLink →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunLink
* airflow.operators.dagrun_operator.TriggerDagRunOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunOperator
* airflow.operators.python_operator.BranchPythonOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.python.BranchPythonOperator
* airflow.operators.python_operator.PythonOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.python.PythonOperator
* airflow.operators.python_operator.PythonVirtualenvOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.python.PythonVirtualenvOperator
* airflow.operators.python_operator.ShortCircuitOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.python.ShortCircuitOperator
* airflow.operators.latest_only_operator.LatestOnlyOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.latest_only.LatestOnlyOperator
* airflow.sensors.date_time_sensor.DateTimeSensor →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.DateTimeSensor
* airflow.operators.email_operator.EmailOperator →
airflow.providers.smtp.operators.smtp.EmailOperator
* airflow.operators.email.EmailOperator →
airflow.providers.smtp.operators.smtp.EmailOperator
* airflow.operators.bash.BashOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.bash.BashOperator
* airflow.operators.EmptyOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.empty.EmptyOperator
closes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/17103
## Test Plan
The test fixture has been updated and checked after each change and
later reorganized in the latest commit
<!--
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?
-->
Closes#17084
## Summary
This PR adds a new rule (RUF102) to detect and fix invalid rule codes in
`noqa` comments.
Invalid rule codes in `noqa` directives serve no purpose and may
indicate outdated code suppressions.
This extends the previous behaviour originating from
`crates/ruff_linter/src/noqa.rs` which would only emit a warnigs.
With this rule a `--fix` is available.
The rule:
1. Analyzes all `noqa` directives to identify invalid rule codes
2. Provides autofix functionality to:
- Remove the entire comment if all codes are invalid
- Remove only the invalid codes when mixed with valid codes
3. Preserves original comment formatting and whitespace where possible
Example cases:
- `# noqa: XYZ111` → Remove entire comment (keep empty line)
- `# noqa: XYZ222, XYZ333` → Remove entire comment (keep empty line)
- `# noqa: F401, INVALID123` → Keep only valid codes (`# noqa: F401`)
## Test Plan
- Added tests in
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/RUF102.py` covering
different example cases.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Notes
- This does not handle cases where parsing fails. E.g. `# noqa:
NON_EXISTENT, ANOTHER_INVALID` causes a `LexicalError` and the
diagnostic is not propagated and we cannot handle the diagnostic. I am
also unsure what proper `fix` handling would be and making the user
aware we don't understand the codes is probably the best bet.
- The rule is added to the Preview rule group as it's a new addition
## Questions
- Should we remove the warnings, now that we have a rule?
- Is the current fix behavior appropriate for all cases, particularly
the handling of whitespace and line deletions?
- I'm new to the codebase; let me know if there are rule utilities which
could have used but didn't.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
We add support for `return` and `raise` statements in the control flow
graph: we simply add an edge to the terminal block, push the statements
to the current block, and proceed.
This implementation will have to be modified somewhat once we add
support for `try` statements - then we will need to check whether to
_defer_ the jump. But for now this will do!
Also in this PR: We fix the `unreachable` diagnostic range so that it
lumps together consecutive unreachable blocks.
## Summary
Following up the discussion in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/14626#issuecomment-2766548545,
we're to reorganize airflow rules. Before this discussion happens, we
combine required changes and suggested changes in to one single error
code.
This PR first rename the original error code to the new error code as we
discussed. We will gradually extract suggested changes out of AIR301 and
AIR302 to AIR311 and AIR312 in the following PRs
## Test Plan
Except for file, error code rename, the test case should work as it used
to be.
## Summary
Add autofix infrastructure to `AIR302` name checks and use this logic to
fix`"airflow", "api_connexion", "security", "requires_access_dataset"`, `"airflow", "Dataset"` and `"airflow",
"datasets", "Dataset"`
## Test Plan
The existing test fixture reflects the update
## Summary
Closes#17112. Allows passing in string and list-of-strings literals
into `subprocess.run` (and related) calls without marking them as
untrusted input:
```py
import subprocess
subprocess.run("true")
# "instant" named expressions are also allowed
subprocess.run(c := "ls")
```
## Test Plan
Added test cases covering new behavior, passed with `cargo nextest run`.
## Summary
* ``airflow.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.is_authorized_dataset`` has
been moved to
``airflow.api_fastapi.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.is_authorized_asset``
in Airflow 3.0
* ``airflow.auth.managers.models.resource_details.DatasetDetails`` has
been moved to
``airflow.api_fastapi.auth.managers.models.resource_details.AssetDetails``
in Airflow 3.0
* Dag arguments `default_view` and `orientation` has been removed in
Airflow 3.0
* `airflow.models.baseoperatorlink.BaseOperatorLink` has been moved to
`airflow.sdk.definitions.baseoperatorlink.BaseOperatorLink` in Airflow
3.0
* ``airflow.notifications.basenotifier.BaseNotifier`` has been moved to
``airflow.sdk.BaseNotifier`` in Airflow 3.0
* ``airflow.utils.log.secrets_masker`` has been moved to
``airflow.sdk.execution_time.secrets_masker`` in Airflow 3.0
* ``airflow...DAG.allow_future_exec_dates`` has been removed in Airflow
3.0
* `airflow.utils.db.create_session` has een removed in Airflow 3.0
* `airflow.sensors.base_sensor_operator.BaseSensorOperator` has been
moved to `airflow.sdk.bases.sensor.BaseSensorOperator` removed Airflow
3.0
* `airflow.utils.file.TemporaryDirectory` has been removed in Airflow
3.0 and can be replaced by `tempfile.TemporaryDirectory`
* `airflow.utils.file.mkdirs` has been removed in Airflow 3.0 and can be
replaced by `pathlib.Path({path}).mkdir`
## Test Plan
Test fixture has been added for these changes
## Summary
Unlike other AIR3XX rules, this best practice can be applied to Airflow
1 and Airflow 2 as well. Thus, we think it might make sense for use to
move it to AIR002 so that the first number of the error align to Airflow
version as possible to reduce confusion
## Test Plan
the test fixture has been updated
## Summary
Adds import `numpy.typing as npt` to `default in
flake8-import-conventions.aliases`
Resolves#17028
## Test Plan
Manually ran local ruff on the altered fixture and also ran `cargo test`
This PR contains the scaffolding for a new control flow graph
implementation, along with its application to the `unreachable` rule. At
the moment, the implementation is a maximal over-approximation: no
control flow is modeled and all statements are counted as reachable.
With each additional statement type we support, this approximation will
improve.
So this PR just contains:
- A `ControlFlowGraph` struct and builder
- Support for printing the flow graph as a Mermaid graph
- Snapshot tests for the actual graphs
- (a very bad!) reimplementation of `unreachable` using the new structs
- Snapshot tests for `unreachable`
# Instructions for Viewing Mermaid snapshots
Unfortunately I don't know how to convince GitHub to render the Mermaid
graphs in the snapshots. However, you can view these locally in VSCode
if you install an extension that supports Mermaid graphs in Markdown,
and then add this to your `settings.json`:
```json
"files.associations": {
"*.md.snap": "markdown",
}
```
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
* The following paths are wrong
* `airflow.providers.amazon.auth_manager.avp.entities` should be
`airflow.providers.amazon.aws.auth_manager.avp.entities`
* `["airflow", "datasets", "manager", "dataset_manager"]` should be
fixed as `airflow.assets.manager` but not
`airflow.assets.manager.asset_manager`
* `["airflow", "datasets.manager", "DatasetManager"]` should be `
["airflow", "datasets", "manager", "DatasetManager"]` instead
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
the test fixture is updated accordingly
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Improve AIR302 test cases
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
test fixtures have been updated accordingly
<!--
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
This is a cleanup PR. I am fixing various English language spelling
errors. This is mostly in docs and docstrings.
## Test Plan
The usual CI tests were run. I tried to build the docs (though I had
some troubles there). The testing needs here are, I trust, very low
impact. (Though I would happily test more.)
## Summary
Stop flagging each invocation of `django.utils.safestring.mark_safe`
(also available at, `django.utils.html.mark_safe`) as an error.
Instead, allow string literals as valid uses for `mark_safe`.
Also, update the documentation, pointing at
`django.utils.html.format_html` for dynamic content generation use
cases.
Closes#16702
## Test Plan
I verified several possible uses, but string literals, are still
flagged.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
This PR stabilizes the preview behavior introduced in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15719 to recognize all symbols
named `TYPE_CHECKING` as type-checking
checks in `if TYPE_CHECKING` conditions. This ensures compatibility with
mypy and pyright.
This PR also stabilizes the new behavior that removes `if 0:` and `if
False` to be no longer considered type checking blocks.
Since then, this syntax has been removed from the typing spec and was
only used for Python modules that don't have a `typing` module
([comment](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15719#issuecomment-2612787793)).
The preview behavior was first released with Ruff 0.9.5 (6th of
February), which was about a month ago. There are no open issues or PRs
for the changed behavior
## Test Plan
The snapshots for `SIM108` change because `SIM108` ignored type checking
blocks but it can no
simplify `if 0` or `if False` blocks again because they're no longer
considered type checking blocks.
The changes in the `TC005` snapshot or only due to that `if 0` and `if
False` are no longer recognized as type checking blocks
<!-- How was it tested? -->
# Summary
The goal of this PR is to address various issues around parsing
suppression comments by
1. Unifying the logic used to parse in-line (`# noqa`) and file-level
(`# ruff: noqa`) noqa comments
2. Recovering from certain errors and surfacing warnings in these cases
Closes#15682
Supersedes #12811
Addresses
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/14229#discussion_r1835481018
Related: #14229 , #12809
## Summary
`RUF035` has been backported into bandit as `S704` in this
[PR](https://github.com/PyCQA/bandit/pull/1225)
This moves the rule and its corresponding setting to the `flake8-bandit`
category
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run`
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
chiri
Victor Hugo Gomes
Igor Drokin
Илья Любавский
Vasco Schiavo
Dan Parizher
Robsdedude
Hmvp
Gideon
Gene Parmesan Thomas
Deric Crago
Dylan
Charlie Marsh
Frazer McLean
Nikolas Hearp
Denys Kyslytsyn
Juriah
Brent Westbrook
𝕂
Victorien
Wei Lee
Marcus Näslund
vjurczenia
Viktor Merkurev
Max Mynter
Vasanth
Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos
omahs
Micha Reiser
Hans
David Salvisberg
w0nder1ng
trag1c
Mohammad Amin Ghasemi
Aarni Koskela
John Stilley
Kaxil Naik
Mauro Fontana