<!--
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? -->
Since we are trying to import both `AutoImport` and `SourceModuleMoved`,
the previous naming was not as descriptive. Renaming it to `Rename`
better reflects the intention.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
no functionality change
## Summary
This PR uses the new `Diagnostic` type for rendering formatter
diagnostics. This allows the formatter to inherit all of the output
formats already implemented in the linter and ty. For example, here's
the new `full` output format, with the formatting diff displayed using
the same infrastructure as the linter:
<img width="592" height="364" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6d09817d-3f27-4960-aa8b-41ba47fb4dc0"
/>
<details><summary>Resolved TODOs</summary>
<p>
~~There are several limitiations/todos here still, especially around the
`OutputFormat` type~~:
- [x] A few literal `todo!`s for the remaining `OutputFormat`s without
matching `DiagnosticFormat`s
- [x] The default output format is `full` instead of something more
concise like the current output
- [x] Some of the output formats (namely JSON) have information that
doesn't make much sense for these diagnostics
The first of these is definitely resolved, and I think the other two are
as well, based on discussion on the design document. In brief, we're
okay inheriting the default `OutputFormat` and can separate the global
option into `lint.output-format` and `format.output-format` in the
future, if needed; and we're okay including redundant information in the
non-human-readable output formats.
My last major concern is with the performance of the new code, as
discussed in the `Benchmarks` section below.
A smaller question is whether we should use `Diagnostic`s for formatting
errors too. I think the answer to this is yes, in line with changes
we're making in the linter too. I still need to implement that here.
</p>
</details>
<details><summary>Benchmarks</summary>
<p>
The values in the table are from a large benchmark on the CPython 3.10
code
base, which involves checking 2011 files, 1872 of which need to be
reformatted.
`stable` corresponds to the same code used on `main`, while
`preview-full` and
`preview-concise` use the new `Diagnostic` code gated behind `--preview`
for the
`full` and `concise` output formats, respectively. `stable-diff` uses
the
`--diff` to compare the two diff rendering approaches. See the full
hyperfine
command below for more details. For a sense of scale, the `stable`
output format
produces 1873 lines on stdout, compared to 855,278 for `preview-full`
and
857,798 for `stable-diff`.
| Command | Mean [ms] | Min [ms] | Max [ms] | Relative |
|:------------------|--------------:|---------:|---------:|-------------:|
| `stable` | 201.2 ± 6.8 | 192.9 | 220.6 | 1.00 |
| `preview-full` | 9113.2 ± 31.2 | 9076.1 | 9152.0 | 45.29 ± 1.54 |
| `preview-concise` | 214.2 ± 1.4 | 212.0 | 217.6 | 1.06 ± 0.04 |
| `stable-diff` | 3308.6 ± 20.2 | 3278.6 | 3341.8 | 16.44 ± 0.56 |
In summary, the `preview-concise` diagnostics are ~6% slower than the
stable
output format, increasing the average runtime from 201.2 ms to 214.2 ms.
The
`full` preview diagnostics are much more expensive, taking over 9113.2
ms to
complete, which is ~3x more expensive even than the stable diffs
produced by the
`--diff` flag.
My main takeaways here are:
1. Rendering `Edit`s is much more expensive than rendering the diffs
from `--diff`
2. Constructing `Edit`s actually isn't too bad
### Constructing `Edit`s
I also took a closer look at `Edit` construction by modifying the code
and
repeating the `preview-concise` benchmark and found that the main issue
is
constructing a `SourceFile` for use in the `Edit` rendering. Commenting
out the
`Edit` construction itself has basically no effect:
| Command | Mean [ms] | Min [ms] | Max [ms] | Relative |
|:----------|------------:|---------:|---------:|------------:|
| `stable` | 197.5 ± 1.6 | 195.0 | 200.3 | 1.00 |
| `no-edit` | 208.9 ± 2.2 | 204.8 | 212.2 | 1.06 ± 0.01 |
However, also omitting the source text from the `SourceFile`
construction
resolves the slowdown compared to `stable`. So it seems that copying the
full
source text into a `SourceFile` is the main cause of the slowdown for
non-`full`
diagnostics.
| Command | Mean [ms] | Min [ms] | Max [ms] | Relative |
|:-----------------|------------:|---------:|---------:|------------:|
| `stable` | 202.4 ± 2.9 | 197.6 | 207.9 | 1.00 |
| `no-source-text` | 202.7 ± 3.3 | 196.3 | 209.1 | 1.00 ± 0.02 |
### Rendering diffs
The main difference between `stable-diff` and `preview-full` seems to be
the diffing strategy we use from `similar`. Both versions use the same
algorithm, but in the existing
[`CodeDiff`](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/main/crates/ruff_linter/src/source_kind.rs#L259)
rendering for the `--diff` flag, we only do line-level diffing, whereas
for `Diagnostic`s we use `TextDiff::iter_inline_changes` to highlight
word-level changes too. Skipping the word diff for `Diagnostic`s closes
most of the gap:
| Command | Mean [s] | Min [s] | Max [s] | Relative |
|:---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| `stable-diff` | 3.323 ± 0.015 | 3.297 | 3.341 | 1.00 |
| `preview-full` | 3.654 ± 0.019 | 3.618 | 3.682 | 1.10 ± 0.01 |
(In some repeated runs, I've seen as small as a ~5% difference, down
from 10% in the table)
This doesn't actually change any of our snapshots, but it would
obviously change the rendered result in a terminal since we wouldn't
highlight the specific words that changed within a line.
Another much smaller change that we can try is removing the deadline
from the `iter_inline_changes` call. It looks like there's a fair amount
of overhead from the default 500 ms deadline for computing these, and
using `iter_inline_changes(op, None)` (`None` for the optional deadline
argument) improves the runtime quite a bit:
| Command | Mean [s] | Min [s] | Max [s] | Relative |
|:---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| `stable-diff` | 3.322 ± 0.013 | 3.298 | 3.341 | 1.00 |
| `preview-full` | 5.296 ± 0.030 | 5.251 | 5.366 | 1.59 ± 0.01 |
<hr>
<details><summary>hyperfine command</summary>
```shell
cargo build --release --bin ruff && hyperfine --ignore-failure --warmup 10 --export-markdown /tmp/table.md \
-n stable -n preview-full -n preview-concise -n stable-diff \
"./target/release/ruff format --check ./crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/cpython/ --no-cache" \
"./target/release/ruff format --check ./crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/cpython/ --no-cache --preview --output-format=full" \
"./target/release/ruff format --check ./crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/cpython/ --no-cache --preview --output-format=concise" \
"./target/release/ruff format --check ./crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/cpython/ --no-cache --diff"
```
</details>
</p>
</details>
## Test Plan
Some new CLI tests and manual testing
## Summary
Addresses
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20443#discussion_r2381237640 by
factoring out the `match` on the ruff output format in a way that should
be reusable by the formatter.
I didn't think this was going to work at first, but the fact that the
config holds options that apply only to certain output formats works in
our favor here. We can set up a single config for all of the output
formats and then use `try_from` to convert the `OutputFormat` to a
`DiagnosticFormat` later.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, plus a few new ones to make sure relocating the
`SHOW_FIX_SUMMARY` rendering worked, that was untested before. I deleted
a bunch of test code along with the `text` module, but I believe all of
it is now well-covered by the `full` and `concise` tests in `ruff_db`.
I also merged this branch into
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20443 locally and made sure that
the API actually helps. `render_diagnostics` dropped in perfectly and
passed the tests there too.
<!--
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 #20570 . In the example, the correct usage had a
bug/issue where in the except block after logging exception, None was
getting returned, which made the linters flag out the code. So adding an
empty raise solves the issue.
## Test Plan
Tested it by building the doc locally.
<!--
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 implements
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/future-feature-not-defined/ (F407) as
a semantic syntax error.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have written inline tests as directed in #17412
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
Summary
--
This fixes a bug pointed out in #20560 where one of the `pylint`
settings wasn't used in its `Display` implementation.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests with updated snapshots
## Summary
Improve the SIM105 rule message to prevent user confusion about how to
properly use `contextlib.suppress`.
The previous message "Replace with `contextlib.suppress(ValueError)`"
was ambiguous and led users to incorrectly use
`contextlib.suppress(ValueError)` as a statement inside except blocks
instead of replacing the entire try-except-pass block with `with
contextlib.suppress(ValueError):`.
This change makes the message more explicit:
- **Before**: `"Use \`contextlib.suppress({exception})\` instead of
\`try\`-\`except\`-\`pass\`"`
- **After**: `"Replace \`try\`-\`except\`-\`pass\` block with \`with
contextlib.suppress({exception})\`"`
The fix title is also updated to be more specific:
- **Before**: `"Replace with \`contextlib.suppress({exception})\`"`
- **After**: `"Replace \`try\`-\`except\`-\`pass\` with \`with
contextlib.suppress({exception})\`"`
Fixes#20462
## Test Plan
- ✅ All existing SIM105 tests pass with updated snapshots
- ✅ Cargo clippy passes without warnings
- ✅ Full test suite passes
- ✅ The new messages clearly indicate that the entire try-except-pass
block should be replaced with a `with` statement, preventing the misuse
described in the issue
---------
Co-authored-by: Giovani Moutinho <e@mgiovani.dev>
<!--
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? -->
First contribution so please let me know if I've made a mistake
anywhere. This was aimed to fix#19982, it adds the isolation level to
PYI021 to in the same style as the PIE790 rule.
fixes: #19982
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I added a case to the PYI021.pyi file where the two rules are present as
there wasn't a case with them both interacting, using the minimal
reproducible example that @ntBre created on the issue (I think I got the
`# ERROR` markings wrong, so please let me know how to fix that if I
did).
---------
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
This PR implements
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/multiple-starred-expressions/ as a
semantic syntax error
## Test Plan
I have added inline tests as directed in #17412
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
- Adds test cases exercising file selection by extension with
`--preview` enabled and disabled.
- Adds `INCLUDE_PREVIEW` with file patterns including `*.pyw`.
- In global preview mode, default configuration selects patterns from
`INCLUDE_PREVIEW`.
- Manually tested ruff server with local vscode for both formatting and
linting of a `.pyw` file.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/13246
## Summary
Adds a new rule to find and report use of `os.path` or `pathlib.Path` in
async functions.
Issue: #8451
## Test Plan
Using `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
Fixes#12734
I have started with simply checking if any arguments that are providing
extra values to the log message are calls to `str` or `repr`, as
suggested in the linked issue. There was a concern that this could cause
false positives and the check should be more explicit. I am happy to
look into that if I have some further examples to work with.
If this is the accepted solution then there are more cases to add to the
test and it should possibly also do test for the same behavior via the
`extra` keyword.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I have added a new test case and python file to flake8_logging_format
with examples of this anti-pattern.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Fixes#20440
Fix B004 to skip invalid hasattr/getattr calls
- Add argument validation for `hasattr` and `getattr`
- Skip B004 rule when function calls have invalid argument patterns
## Summary
Implements new rule `B912` that requires the `strict=` argument for
`map(...)` calls with two or more iterables on Python 3.14+, following
the same pattern as `B905` for `zip()`.
Closes#20057
---------
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <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
Resolves#20033
## Test Plan
unit tests added to the new split function, existing snapshot test
updated.
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? -->
Fixes#19887
- flynt(FLY002): When joining only string constants, upgrade raw
single-quoted strings to raw triple-quoted if the resulting
content contains a newline.
- Choose a safe triple-quote delimiter by switching to the opposite
quote style if the preferred triple appears inside the
content.
- Update FLY002 snapshot to include the `\n'.join([r'line1','line2'])`
case.
## Test Plan
I've added one test case to FLY002.py.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.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? -->
Fixes#20255
Mark single-item-membership-test fixes as always unsafe
- Always set `Applicability::Unsafe` for FURB171 fixes
- Update “Fix safety” docs to reflect always-unsafe behavior
- Expand tests (not in, nested set/frozenset, commented args)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have added new test cases to
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/refurb/FURB171_0.py` and
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/refurb/FURB171_1.py`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/20134
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run flake8_use_pathlib`
---------
Co-authored-by: Dan Parizher <danparizher@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
Part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/2331
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run flake8_use_pathlib`
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
This refactors the importer abstraction to use a shared
`Insertion`. This is mostly just moving some code around
with some slight tweaks.
The plan here is to keep the rest of the importing code
in `ruff_linter` and then write something ty-specific on
top of `Insertion`. This ends up sharing some code, but
not as much as would be ideal. In particular, the
`ruff_linter` imported is pretty tightly coupled with
ruff's semantic model. So to share the code, we'd need to
abstract over that.
<!--
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 implements F406
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/undefined-local-with-nested-import-star-usage/
as a semantic syntax error
## Test Plan
I have written inline tests as directed in #17412
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
- Convert panics to diagnostics with id `Panic`, severity `Fatal`, and
the error as the diagnostic message, annotated with a `Span` with empty
code block and no range.
- Updates the post-linting message diagnostic handling to track the
maximum severity seen, and then prints the "report a bug in ruff"
message only if the max severity was `Fatal`
This depends on the sorting changes since it creates diagnostics with no
range specified.
## Summary
Resolves#20266
Definition of the frozen dataclass attribute can be instantiation of a
nested frozen dataclass as well as a non-nested one.
### Problem explanation
The `function_call_in_dataclass_default` function is invoked during the
"defined scope" stage, after all scopes have been processed. At this
point, the semantic references the top-level scope. When
`SemanticModel::lookup_attribute` executes, it searches for bindings in
the top-level module scope rather than the class scope, resulting in an
error.
To solve this issue, the lookup should be evaluated through the class
scope.
## Test Plan
- Added test case from issue
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
## Summary
Fixes#19842
Prevent infinite loop with I002 and UP026
- Implement isort-aware handling for UP026 (deprecated mock import):
- Add CLI integration tests in crates/ruff/tests/lint.rs:
## Test Plan
I have added two integration tests
`pyupgrade_up026_respects_isort_required_import_fix` and
`pyupgrade_up026_respects_isort_required_import_from_fix` in
`crates/ruff/tests/lint.rs`.
## Summary
Resolves#20282
Makes the rule fix always unsafe, because the replacement may not be
semantically equivalent to the original expression, potentially changing
the behavior of the code.
Updated docstring with examples.
## Test Plan
- Added two tests from issue and regenerated the snapshot
---------
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
Fixes#20204
Recognize t-strings, generators, and lambdas in RUF016
- Accept boolean literals as valid index and slice bounds.
- Add TString, Generator, and Lambda to `CheckableExprType`.
- Expand RUF016.py fixture and update snapshots accordingly.
Our token-based rules and `noqa` extraction used an `Indexer` that kept
track of f-string ranges but not t-strings. We've updated the `Indexer`
and downstream uses thereof to handle both f-strings and t-strings.
Most of the diff is renaming and adding tests.
Note that much of the "new" logic gets to be naive because the lexer has
already ensured that f and t-string "starts" are paired with their
respective "ends", even amidst nesting and so on.
Finally: one could imagine wanting to know if a given interpolated
string range corresponds to an f-string or a t-string, but I didn't find
a place where we actually needed this.
Closes#20310
## Summary
This is the GitHub analog to #20117. This PR prepares to add a GitHub
output format to ty by moving the implementation from `ruff_linter` to
`ruff_db`. Hopefully this one is a bit easier to review
commit-by-commit. Almost all of the refactoring this time is in the
first commit, then the second commit adds the new `OutputFormat` variant
and moves the file into `ruff_db`. The third commit is just a small
touch up to use a private method that accommodates ty files so that we
can run the tests and update/move the snapshots.
I had to push a fourth commit to fix and test diagnostics without a
span/file.
## Test Plan
Existing tests
<!--
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#20235
• Fix `RUF102` to properly handle rule redirects when validating noqa
codes
• Update `code_is_valid` to check redirect targets before determining
validity
• Add test case for rule redirects (TCH002 in this case)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have added a test case for rule redirects to
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/RUF102.py`.
<!--
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#18349
After this change:
- All deprecated rules are deselected by default
- They are only selected if the user specifically selects them by code,
e.g. `--select UP038`
- Thus, `--select ALL --select UP --select UP0` won't select the
deprecated rule UP038
- Documented the change in version policy. From now on, deprecating a
rule should increase the minor version
## Test Plan
Integration tests in "integration_tests.rs"
Also tested with a temporary test package:
```
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP038
warning: Rule `UP038` is deprecated and will be removed in a future release.
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
UP038 Use `X | Y` in `isinstance` call instead of `(X, Y)`
--> main.py:2:11
|
1 | def main():
2 | print(isinstance(25, (str, int)))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: Convert to `X | Y`
Found 1 error.
No fixes available (1 hidden fix can be enabled with the `--unsafe-fixes` option).
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP03
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP0
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select ALL
# warnings and errors, but because of other errors, UP038 was deselected
```
- **Stabilize `airflow3-suggested-update` (`AIR311`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-suggested-to-move-to-provider` (`AIR312`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-removal` (`AIR301`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-moved-to-provider` (`AIR302`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow-dag-no-schedule-argument` (`AIR002`)**
I put this all in one PR to make it easier to double check with @Lee-W
before we merge this. I also made a few minor documentation changes and
updated one error message that I want to make sure are okay. But for the
most part this just moves the rules from `RuleGroup::Preview` to
`RuleGroup::Stable`!
Fixes#17749
This stabilizes the behavior introduced in #16565 which (roughly) tries
to match an import like `import a.b.c` to an actual directory path
`a/b/c` in order to label it as first-party, rather than simply looking
for a directory `a`.
Mainly this affects the sorting of imports in the presence of namespace
packages, but a few other rules are affected as well.
This one has been a bit contentious in the past. It usually uncovers
~700 ecosystem hits. See:
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16657
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16690
But I think there's consensus that it's okay to merge as-is. We'd love
an
autofix since it's so common, but we can't reliably tell what a user
meant. The
pattern is ambiguous after all 😆
This is the first rule that actually needed its test case relocated, but
the
docs looked good.
## Summary
This PR Removes deprecated UP038 as per instructed in #18727closes#18727
## Test Plan
I have run tests non of them failing
One Question i have is do we have to document that UP038 is removed?
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
closes#7710
## Test Plan
It is is removal so i don't think we have to add tests otherwise i have
followed test plan mentioned in contributing.md
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Summary
--
Rule and test/snapshot updated, the docs look good
My one hesitation here is that we could hold off stabilizing the rule
until its fix is also ready for stabilization, but this is also the only
preview PTH rule, so I think it's okay to stabilize the rule and later
(probably in the next minor release) stabilize the fixes together.
The tests looked good. For the docs, I added a `## See also` section
pointing to
the closely-related F841 (unused-variable) and the corresponding section
to F841
pointing back to RUF059. It seems like you'd probably want both of these
active
or at least to know about the other when reading the docs.
## Summary
Resolves#19357
Skip UP008 diagnostic for `builtins.super(P, self)` calls when
`__class__` is not referenced locally, preventing incorrect fixes.
**Note:** I haven't found concrete information about which cases
`__class__` will be loaded into the scope. Let me know if anyone has
references, it would be useful to enhance the implementation. I did a
lot of tests to determine when `__class__` is loaded. Considered
sources:
1. [Python doc
super](https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#super)
2. [Python doc classes](https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html)
3. [pep-3135](https://peps.python.org/pep-3135/#specification)
As I understand it, Python will inject at runtime into local scope a
`__class__` variable if it detects references to `super` or `__class__`.
This allows calling `super()` and passing appropriate parameters.
However, the compiler doesn't do the same for `builtins.super`, so we
need to somehow introduce `__class__` into the local scope.
I figured out `__class__` will be in scope with valid value when two
conditions are met:
1. `super` or `__class__` names have been loaded within function scope
4. `__class__` is not overridden.
I think my solution isn't elegant, so I would be appreciate a detailed
review.
## Test Plan
Added 19 test cases, updated snapshots.
---------
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
- Renames functions to drop `expect_` from names.
- Make functions return `Option<LineColumn>` to appropriately signal
when range is not available.
- Update existing consumers to use `unwrap_or_default()`. Uncertain if
there are better fallback behaviors for individual consumers.
Specifically, the [`if_not_else`] lint will sometimes flag
code to change the order of `if` and `else` bodies if this
would allow a `!` to be removed. While perhaps tasteful in
some cases, there are many cases in my experience where this
bows to other competing concerns that impact readability.
(Such as the relative sizes of the `if` and `else` bodies,
or perhaps an ordering that just makes the code flow in a
more natural way.)
[`if_not_else`]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/if_not_else
<!--
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
Noticed this was not escaped when writing a project that parses the
result of `ruff rule --outputformat json`. This is visible here:
<https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/mixed-case-variable-in-global-scope/#why-is-this-bad>
## Test Plan
documentation only
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.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? -->
### Why
Removal should be grouped into the same category. It doesn't matter
whether it's from a provider or not (and the only case we used to have
was not anyway).
`ProviderReplacement` is used to indicate that we have a replacement and
we might need to install an extra Python package to cater to it.
### What
Move `airflow.operators.postgres_operator.Mapping` from AIR302 to AIR301
and get rid of `ProviderReplace::None`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Update the test fixtures accordingly in the first commit and reorganize
them in the second commit
<!--
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 implements
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/yield-from-in-async-function/ as a
syntax semantic error
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have written a simple inline test as directed in
[https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/17412](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/17412)
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <alex.waygood@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.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? -->
update the argument `datasets` as `assets`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update fixture accordingly
<!--
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? -->
### What
Change the message from "DAG should have an explicit `schedule`
argument" to "`DAG` or `@dag` should have an explicit `schedule`
argument"
### Why
We're trying to get rid of the idea that DAG in airflow was Directed
acyclic graph. Thus, change it to refer to the class `DAG` or the
decorator `@dag` might help a bit.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update the test fixtures accordly
## Summary
This PR fixes#7352 by exposing the `show_fix_diff` option used in our
snapshot tests in the CLI. As the issue suggests, we plan to make this
the default output format in the future, so this is added to the `full`
output format in preview for now.
This turned out to be pretty straightforward. I just used our existing
`Applicability` settings to determine whether or not to print the diff.
The snapshot differences are because we now set
`Applicability::DisplayOnly` for our snapshot tests. This
`Applicability` is also used to determine whether or not the fix icon
(`[*]`) is rendered, so this is now shown for display-only fixes in our
snapshots. This was already the case previously, but we were only
setting `Applicability::Unsafe` in these tests and ignoring the
`Applicability` when rendering fix diffs. CLI users can't enable
display-only fixes, so this is only a test change for now, but this
should work smoothly if we decide to expose a `--display-only-fixes`
flag or similar in the future.
I also deleted the `PrinterFlags::SHOW_FIX_DIFF` flag. This was
completely unused before, and it seemed less confusing just to delete it
than to enable it in the right place and check it along with the
`OutputFormat` and `preview`.
## Test Plan
I only added one CLI test for now. I'm kind of assuming that we have
decent coverage of the cases where this shouldn't be firing, especially
the `output_format` CLI test, which shows that this definitely doesn't
affect non-preview `full` output. I'm happy to add more tests with
different combinations of options, if we're worried about any in
particular. I did try `--diff` and `--preview` and a few other
combinations manually.
And here's a screenshot using our trusty UP049 example from the design
discussion confirming that all the colors and other formatting still
look as expected:
<img width="786" height="629" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/94e408bc-af7b-4573-b546-a5ceac2620f2"
/>
And one with an unsafe fix to see the footer:
<img width="782" height="367" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/bbb29e47-310b-4293-b2c2-cc7aee3baff4"
/>
## Related issues and PR
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7352
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/12595
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/12598
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/12599
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/12600
I think we could probably close all of these issues now. I think we've
either resolved or avoided most of them, and if we encounter them again
with the new output format, it would probably make sense to open new
ones anyway.
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`.
## Summary
I spun this off from #19919 to separate the rendering code change and
snapshot updates from the (much smaller) changes to expose this in the
CLI. I grouped all of the `ruff_linter` snapshot changes in the final
commit in an effort to make this easier to review. The code changes are
in [this
range](619395eb41).
I went through all of the snapshots, albeit fairly quickly, and they all
looked correct to me. In the last few commits I was trying to resolve an
existing issue in the alignment of the line number separator:
73720c73be/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/flake8_comprehensions/snapshots/ruff_linter__rules__flake8_comprehensions__tests__C409_C409.py.snap (L87-L89)
In the snapshot above on `main`, you can see that a double-digit line
number at the end of the context lines for a snippet was causing a
misalignment with the other separators. That's now resolved. The one
downside is that this can lead to a mismatch with the diagnostic above:
```
C409 [*] Unnecessary list literal passed to `tuple()` (rewrite as a tuple literal)
--> C409.py:4:6
|
2 | t2 = tuple([1, 2])
3 | t3 = tuple((1, 2))
4 | t4 = tuple([
| ______^
5 | | 1,
6 | | 2
7 | | ])
| |__^
8 | t5 = tuple(
9 | (1, 2)
|
help: Rewrite as a tuple literal
1 | t1 = tuple([])
2 | t2 = tuple([1, 2])
3 | t3 = tuple((1, 2))
- t4 = tuple([
4 + t4 = (
5 | 1,
6 | 2
- ])
7 + )
8 | t5 = tuple(
9 | (1, 2)
10 | )
note: This is an unsafe fix and may remove comments or change runtime behavior
```
But I don't think we can avoid that without really reworking this
rendering to make the diagnostic and diff rendering aware of each other.
Anyway, this should only happen in relatively rare cases where the
diagnostic is near a digit boundary and also near a context boundary.
Most of our diagnostics line up nicely.
Another potential downside of the new rendering format is its handling
of long stretches of `+` or `-` lines:
```
help: Replace with `Literal[...] | None`
21 | ...
22 |
23 |
- def func6(arg1: Literal[
- "hello",
- None # Comment 1
- , "world"
- ]):
24 + def func6(arg1: Literal["hello", "world"] | None):
25 | ...
26 |
27 |
note: This is an unsafe fix and may remove comments or change runtime behavior
```
To me it just seems a little hard to tell what's going on with just a
long streak of `-`-prefixed lines. I saw an even more exaggerated
example at some point, but I think this is also fairly rare. Most of the
snapshots seem more like the examples we looked at on Discord with
plenty of `|` lines and pairs of `+` and `-` lines.
## Test Plan
Existing tests plus one new test in `ruff_db` to isolate a line
separator alignment issue
<!--
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
This PR is a first step toward adding a GitLab output format to ty. It
converts the `GitlabEmitter` from `ruff_linter` to a `GitlabRenderer` in
`ruff_db` and updates its implementation to handle non-Ruff files and
diagnostics without primary spans. I tried to break up the changes here
so that they're easy to review commit-by-commit, or at least in groups
of commits:
- [preparatory changes in-place in `ruff_linter` and a `ruff_db`
skeleton](0761b73a61)
- [moving the code over with no implementation changes mixed
in](0761b73a61..8f909ea0bb)
- [tidying up the code now in
`ruff_db`](9f047c4f9f..e5e217fcd6)
This wasn't strictly necessary, but I also added some `Serialize`
structs instead of calling `json!` to make it a little clearer that we
weren't modifying the schema (e4c4bee35d).
I plan to follow this up with a separate PR exposing this output format
in the ty CLI, which should be quite straightforward.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, especially the two that show up in the diff as renamed
nearly without changes
## 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
<!--
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
Part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20100 |
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20100#issuecomment-3225349156
<!--
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/20088
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run flake8_use_pathlib`
---------
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
Part of #20009 (i forgot to delete it in this PR)
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
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>
## Summary
As noted in a code TODO, our `Diff` rendering code previously didn't
have any
special handling for notebooks. This was particularly obvious when the
diffs
were rendered right next to the corresponding diagnostic because the
diagnostic
used cell-based line numbers, while the diff was still using line
numbers from
the concatenated source. This PR updates the diff rendering to handle
notebooks
too.
The main improvements shown in the example below are:
- Line numbers are now remapped to be relative to their cell
- Context lines from other cells are suppressed
```
error[unused-import][*]: `math` imported but unused
--> notebook.ipynb:cell 2:2:8
|
1 | # cell 2
2 | import math
| ^^^^
3 |
4 | print('hello world')
|
help: Remove unused import: `math`
ℹ Safe fix
1 1 | # cell 2
2 |-import math
3 2 |
4 3 | print('hello world')
```
I tried a few different approaches here before finally just splitting
the notebook into separate text ranges by cell and diffing each one
separately. It seems to work and passes all of our tests, but I don't
know if it's actually enforced anywhere that a single edit doesn't span
cells. Such an edit would silently be dropped right now since it would
fail the `contains_range` check. I also feel like I may have overlooked
an existing way to partition a file into cells like this.
## Test Plan
Existing notebook tests, plus a new one in `ruff_db`
## Summary
Removes the `module_ptr` field from `AstNodeRef` in release mode, and
change `NodeIndex` to a `NonZeroU32` to reduce the size of
`Option<AstNodeRef<_>>` fields.
I believe CI runs in debug mode, so this won't show up in the memory
report, but this reduces memory by ~2% in release mode.
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
--
This is a preparatory PR in support of #19919. It moves our `Diff`
rendering code from `ruff_linter` to `ruff_db`, where we have direct
access to the `DiagnosticStylesheet` used by our other diagnostic
rendering code. As shown by the tests, this shouldn't cause any visible
changes. The colors aren't exactly the same, as I note in a TODO
comment, but I don't think there's any existing way to see those, even
in tests.
The `Diff` implementation is mostly unchanged. I just switched from a
Ruff-specific `SourceFile` to a `DiagnosticSource` (removing an
`expect_ruff_source_file` call) and updated the `LineStyle` struct and
other styling calls to use `fmt_styled` and our existing stylesheet.
In support of these changes, I added three styles to our stylesheet:
`insertion` and `deletion` for the corresponding diff operations, and
`underline`, which apparently we _can_ use, as I hoped on Discord. This
isn't supported in all terminals, though. It worked in ghostty but not
in st for me.
I moved the `calculate_print_width` function from the now-deleted
`diff.rs` to a method on `OneIndexed`, where it was available everywhere
we needed it. I'm not sure if that's desirable, or if my other changes
to the function are either (using `ilog10` instead of a loop). This does
make it `const` and slightly simplifies things in my opinion, but I'm
happy to revert it if preferred.
I also inlined a version of `show_nonprinting` from the
`ShowNonprinting` trait in `ruff_linter`:
f4be05a83b/crates/ruff_linter/src/text_helpers.rs (L3-L5)
This trait is now only used in `source_kind.rs`, so I'm not sure it's
worth having the trait or the macro-generated implementation (which is
only called once). This is obviously closely related to our unprintable
character handling in diagnostic rendering, but the usage seems
different enough not to try to combine them.
f4be05a83b/crates/ruff_db/src/diagnostic/render.rs (L990-L998)
We could also move the trait to another crate where we can use it in
`ruff_db` instead of inlining here, of course.
Finally, this PR makes `TextEmitter` a very thin wrapper around a
`DisplayDiagnosticsConfig`. It's still used in a few places, though,
unlike the other emitters we've replaced, so I figured it was worth
keeping around. It's a pretty nice API for setting all of the options on
the config and then passing that along to a `DisplayDiagnostics`.
Test Plan
--
Existing snapshot tests with diffs
## 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
## Summary
Fixes#19881. While I was here, I also made a couple of related tweaks
to the output format. First, we don't need to strip the `SyntaxError: `
prefix anymore since that's not added directly to the diagnostic message
after #19644. Second, we can use `secondary_code_or_id` to fall back on
the lint ID for syntax errors, which changes the `check_name` from
`syntax-error` to `invalid-syntax`. And then the main change requested
in the issue, prepending the `check_name` to the description.
## Test Plan
Existing tests and a new screenshot from GitLab:
<img width="362" height="113" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/97654ad4-a639-4489-8c90-8661c7355097"
/>
Summary
--
To take advantage of the new diagnostics, we need to update our caching
model to include all of the information supported by `ruff_db`'s
diagnostic type. Instead of trying to serialize all of this information,
Micha suggested simply not caching files with diagnostics, like we
already do for files with syntax errors. This PR is an attempt at that
approach.
This has the added benefit of trimming down our `Rule` derives since
this was the last place the `FromStr`/`strum_macros::EnumString`
implementation was used, as well as the (de)serialization macros and
`CacheKey`.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests, with their input updated not to include a diagnostic,
plus a new test showing that files with lint diagnostics are not cached.
Benchmarks
--
In addition to tests, we wanted to check that this doesn't degrade
performance too much. I posted part of this new analysis in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18198#issuecomment-3175048672,
but I'll duplicate it here. In short, there's not much difference
between `main` and this branch for projects with few diagnostics
(`home-assistant`, `airflow`), as expected. The difference for projects
with many diagnostics (`cpython`) is quite a bit bigger (~300 ms vs ~220
ms), but most projects that run ruff regularly are likely to have very
few diagnostics, so this may not be a problem practically.
I guess GitHub isn't really rendering this as I intended, but the extra
separator line is meant to separate the benchmarks on `main` (above the
line) from this branch (below the line).
| Command | Mean [ms] | Min [ms] | Max [ms] |
|:--------------------------------------------------------------|----------:|---------:|---------:|
| `ruff check cpython --no-cache --isolated --exit-zero` | 322.0 | 317.5
| 326.2 |
| `ruff check cpython --isolated --exit-zero` | 217.3 | 209.8 | 237.9 |
| `ruff check home-assistant --no-cache --isolated --exit-zero` | 279.5
| 277.0 | 283.6 |
| `ruff check home-assistant --isolated --exit-zero` | 37.2 | 35.7 |
40.6 |
| `ruff check airflow --no-cache --isolated --exit-zero` | 133.1 | 130.4
| 146.4 |
| `ruff check airflow --isolated --exit-zero` | 34.7 | 32.9 | 41.6 |
|:--------------------------------------------------------------|----------:|---------:|---------:|
| `ruff check cpython --no-cache --isolated --exit-zero` | 330.1 | 324.5
| 333.6 |
| `ruff check cpython --isolated --exit-zero` | 309.2 | 306.1 | 314.7 |
| `ruff check home-assistant --no-cache --isolated --exit-zero` | 288.6
| 279.4 | 302.3 |
| `ruff check home-assistant --isolated --exit-zero` | 39.8 | 36.9 |
42.4 |
| `ruff check airflow --no-cache --isolated --exit-zero` | 134.5 | 131.3
| 140.6 |
| `ruff check airflow --isolated --exit-zero` | 39.1 | 37.2 | 44.3 |
I had Claude adapt one of the
[scripts](https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine/blob/master/scripts/plot_whisker.py)
from the hyperfine repo to make this plot, so it's not quite perfect,
but maybe it's still useful. The table is probably more reliable for
close comparisons. I'll put more details about the benchmarks below for
the sake of future reproducibility.
<img width="4472" height="2368" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1c42d13e-818a-44e7-b34c-247340a936d7"
/>
<details><summary>Benchmark details</summary>
<p>
The versions of each project:
- CPython: 6322edd260e8cad4b09636e05ddfb794a96a0451, the 3.10 branch
from the contributing docs
- `home-assistant`: 5585376b406f099fb29a970b160877b57e5efcb0
- `airflow`: 29a1cb0cfde9d99b1774571688ed86cb60123896
The last two are just the main branches at the time I cloned the repos.
I don't think our Ruff config should be applied since I used
`--isolated`, but these are cloned into my copy of Ruff at
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test`, and I trimmed the
`./target/release/` prefix from each of the commands, but these are
builds of Ruff in release mode.
And here's the script with the `hyperfine` invocation:
```shell
#!/bin/bash
cargo build --release --bin ruff
# git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/home-assistant/core crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/home-assistant
# git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/apache/airflow crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/airflow
bin=./target/release/ruff
resources=./crates/ruff_linter/resources/test
cpython=$resources/cpython
home_assistant=$resources/home-assistant
airflow=$resources/airflow
base=${1:-bench}
hyperfine --warmup 10 --export-json $base.json --export-markdown $base.md \
"$bin check $cpython --no-cache --isolated --exit-zero" \
"$bin check $cpython --isolated --exit-zero" \
"$bin check $home_assistant --no-cache --isolated --exit-zero" \
"$bin check $home_assistant --isolated --exit-zero" \
"$bin check $airflow --no-cache --isolated --exit-zero" \
"$bin check $airflow --isolated --exit-zero"
```
I ran this once on `main` (`baseline` in the graph, top half of the
table) and once on this branch (`nocache` and bottom of the table).
</p>
</details>
<!--
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 is a follow-up to
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/19415#discussion_r2263456740 to
remove some unused code. As Micha noticed,
`GroupedEmitter::with_show_source` was only used in local unit tests[^1]
and was safe to remove. This allowed deleting `MessageCodeFrame` and a
lot more helper code previously shared with the `full` output format.
I also moved some other code from `text.rs` and `message/mod.rs` into
`grouped.rs` that is now only used for the `grouped` format. With a
little refactoring of the `concise` rendering logic in `ruff_db`, we
could probably remove `RuleCodeAndBody` too. The only difference I see
from the `concise` output is whether we print the filename next to the
row and column or not:
```shell
> ruff check --output-format concise
try.py:1:8: F401 [*] `math` imported but unused
> ruff check --output-format grouped
try.py:
1:8 F401 [*] `math` imported but unused
```
But I didn't try to do that here.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, with the source code no longer displayed. I also deleted
one test, as it was now a duplicate of the `default` test.
[^1]: "Local unit tests" as opposed to all of our linter snapshot tests,
as is the case for `TextEmitter::with_show_fix_diff`. We also want to
expose that to users eventually
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7352), which I don't believe
is the case for the `grouped` format.
## Summary
This PR switches the `full` output format in Ruff over to use the
rendering code
in `ruff_db`. As proposed in the design doc, this involves a lot of
changes to the snapshot output.
I also had to comment out this assertion with a TODO to replace it after
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/19688 because many of Ruff's
"file-level" annotations aren't actually file-level. They just happen to
occur at the start of the file, especially in tests with very short
snippets.
529d81daca/crates/ruff_annotate_snippets/src/renderer/display_list.rs (L1204-L1208)
I broke up the snapshot commits at the end into several blocks, but I
don't think it's enough to help with review. The first few (notebooks,
syntax errors, and test rules) are small enough to look at, but I
couldn't really think of other categories beyond that. I'm happy to
break those up or pick out specific examples beyond what I have below,
if that would help.
The minimal code changes are in this
[range](abd28f1e77),
with the snapshot commits following. Moving the `FullRenderer` and
updating the `EmitterFlags` aren't strictly necessary either. I even
dropped the renderer commit this morning but figured it made sense to
keep it since we have the `full` module for tests. I don't feel strongly
either way.
## Test Plan
I did actually click through all 1700 snapshots individually instead of
accepting them all at once, although I moved through them quickly. There
are a
few main categories:
### Lint diagnostics
```diff
-unused.py:8:19: F401 [*] `pathlib` imported but unused
+F401 [*] `pathlib` imported but unused
+ --> unused.py:8:19
|
7 | # Unused, _not_ marked as required (due to the alias).
8 | import pathlib as non_alias
- | ^^^^^^^^^ F401
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
9 |
10 | # Unused, marked as required.
|
- = help: Remove unused import: `pathlib`
+help: Remove unused import: `pathlib`
```
- The filename and line numbers are moved to the second line
- The second noqa code next to the underline is removed
### Syntax errors
These are much like the above.
```diff
- -:1:16: invalid-syntax: Expected one or more symbol names after import
+ invalid-syntax: Expected one or more symbol names after import
+ --> -:1:16
|
1 | from foo import
| ^
```
One thing I noticed while reviewing some of these, but I don't think is
strictly syntax-error-related, is that some of the new diagnostics have
a little less context after the error. I don't think this is a problem,
but it's one small discrepancy I hadn't noticed before. Here's a minor
example:
```diff
-syntax_errors.py:1:15: invalid-syntax: Expected one or more symbol names after import
+invalid-syntax: Expected one or more symbol names after import
+ --> syntax_errors.py:1:15
|
1 | from os import
| ^
2 |
3 | if call(foo
-4 | def bar():
|
```
And one of the biggest examples:
```diff
-E30_syntax_error.py:18:11: invalid-syntax: Expected ')', found newline
+invalid-syntax: Expected ')', found newline
+ --> E30_syntax_error.py:18:11
|
16 | pass
17 |
18 | foo = Foo(
| ^
-19 |
-20 |
-21 | def top(
|
```
Similarly, a few of the lint diagnostics showed that the cut indicator
calculation for overly long lines is also slightly different, but I
think that's okay too.
### Full-file diagnostics
```diff
-comment.py:1:1: I002 [*] Missing required import: `from __future__ import annotations`
+I002 [*] Missing required import: `from __future__ import annotations`
+--> comment.py:1:1
+help: Insert required import: `from __future__ import annotations`
+
```
As noted above, these will be much more rare after #19688 too. This case
isn't a true full-file diagnostic and will render a snippet in the
future, but you can see that we're now rendering the help message that
would have been discarded before. In contrast, this is a true full-file
diagnostic and should still look like this after #19688:
```diff
-__init__.py:1:1: A005 Module `logging` shadows a Python standard-library module
+A005 Module `logging` shadows a Python standard-library module
+--> __init__.py:1:1
```
### Jupyter notebooks
There's nothing particularly different about these, just showing off the
cell index again.
```diff
- Jupyter.ipynb:cell 3:1:7: F821 Undefined name `x`
+ F821 Undefined name `x`
+ --> Jupyter.ipynb:cell 3:1:7
|
1 | print(x)
- | ^ F821
+ | ^
|
```
PLE2513 --fix changes ESC and SUB to uppercase hexadecimal values such
as \x1B while the formatter changes them to lowercase \x1b
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
Dan Parizher
Dylan
Igor Drokin
Wei Lee
Brent Westbrook
Takayuki Maeda
Rahul Sahoo
Bhuminjay Soni
Giovani Moutinho
Ed Cuss
Amethyst Reese
Pieter Cardillo Kwok
renovate[bot]
Gary Yendell
Frazer McLean
Micha Reiser
chiri
Nikolas Hearp
Andrew Gallant
Loïc Riegel
हिमांशु
arielle
Alex Waygood
Hans
Lior Weissman
Kot
Hamir Mahal
Ibraheem Ahmed
Vivek Dasari
Max Mynter
Andrey
Avasam
Roman Kitaev
Harutaka Kawamura
Sneha Prabhu
ember91