## Summary
This PR is a collaboration with @AlexWaygood from our pairing session
last Friday.
The main goal here is removing `ruff_linter::message::OldDiagnostic` in
favor of
using `ruff_db::diagnostic::Diagnostic` directly. This involved a few
major steps:
- Transferring the fields
- Transferring the methods and trait implementations, where possible
- Converting some constructor methods to free functions
- Moving the `SecondaryCode` struct
- Updating the method names
I'm hoping that some of the methods, especially those in the
`expect_ruff_*`
family, won't be necessary long-term, but I avoided trying to replace
them
entirely for now to keep the already-large diff a bit smaller.
### Related refactors
Alex and I noticed a few refactoring opportunities while looking at the
code,
specifically the very similar implementations for
`create_parse_diagnostic`,
`create_unsupported_syntax_diagnostic`, and
`create_semantic_syntax_diagnostic`.
We combined these into a single generic function, which I then copied
into
`ruff_linter::message` with some small changes and a TODO to combine
them in the
future.
I also deleted the `DisplayParseErrorType` and `TruncateAtNewline` types
for
reporting parse errors. These were added in #4124, I believe to work
around the
error messages from LALRPOP. Removing these didn't affect any tests, so
I think
they were unnecessary now that we fully control the error messages from
the
parser.
On a more minor note, I factored out some calls to the
`OldDiagnostic::filename`
(now `Diagnostic::expect_ruff_filename`) function to avoid repeatedly
allocating
`String`s in some places.
### Snapshot changes
The `show_statistics_syntax_errors` integration test changed because the
`OldDiagnostic::name` method used `syntax-error` instead of
`invalid-syntax`
like in ty. I think this (`--statistics`) is one of the only places we
actually
use this name for syntax errors, so I hope this is okay. An alternative
is to
use `syntax-error` in ty too.
The other snapshot changes are from removing this code, as discussed on
[Discord](https://discord.com/channels/1039017663004942429/1228460843033821285/1388252408848847069):
34052a1185/crates/ruff_linter/src/message/mod.rs (L128-L135)
I think both of these are technically breaking changes, but they only
affect
syntax errors and are very narrow in scope, while also pretty
substantially
simplifying the refactor, so I hope they're okay to include in a patch
release.
## Test plan
Existing tests, with the adjustments mentioned above
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Summary
--
Closes#19014 by identifying more `field` functions from `attrs`. We
already detected these when imported from `attrs` but not the `attr`
module from the same package. These functions are identical to the
`attrs` versions:
```pycon
>>> import attrs, attr
>>> attrs.field is attr.field
True
>>> attrs.Factory is attr.Factory
True
>>>
```
Test Plan
--
Regression tests based on the 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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [pytest-incorrect-mark-parentheses-style
(PT023)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/pytest-incorrect-mark-parentheses-style/#pytest-incorrect-mark-parentheses-style-pt023)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/48989153-6d4a-493a-a287-07f330f270bc)
```py
import pytest
@pytest.mark.foo
def test_something(): ...
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/741f4d19-4607-4777-a77e-4ea6c62845e1)
```py
import pytest
@pytest.mark.foo()
def test_something(): ...
```
This just swaps the parenthesis in the "Example" and "Use instead"
sections since the default configuration is no parenthesis
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [pytest-warns-too-broad
(PT030)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/pytest-warns-too-broad/#pytest-warns-too-broad-pt030)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/2296ae7e-c775-427a-a020-6fb25321f3f7)
```py
import pytest
def test_foo():
with pytest.warns(RuntimeWarning):
...
# empty string is also an error
with pytest.warns(RuntimeWarning, match=""):
...
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/af35a482-1c2f-47ee-aff3-ff1e9fa447de)
```py
import pytest
def test_foo():
with pytest.warns(Warning):
...
# empty string is also an error
with pytest.warns(Warning, match=""):
...
```
`RuntimeWarning` is not in the default
[warns-require-match-for](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/settings/#lint_flake8-pytest-style_warns-require-match-for)
list, while `Warning` is. The "Use instead" section was also updated
similarly
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [avoidable-escaped-quote
(Q003)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/avoidable-escaped-quote/#avoidable-escaped-quote-q003)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/fb319d0f-8016-46a1-b6bb-42b1b054feea)
```py
foo = 'bar\'s'
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/d9626561-0646-448f-9282-3f0691b90831)
```py
foo = "bar\"s"
```
The original example got overwritten by `Q000`, since double quotes is
the default config. The quotes were also switched in the "Use instead"
section.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [enumerate-for-loop
(SIM113)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/enumerate-for-loop/#enumerate-for-loop-sim113)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/a6ef6fec-eb6b-477c-a962-616f0b8e1491)
```py
fruits = ["apple", "banana", "cherry"]
for fruit in fruits:
print(f"{i + 1}. {fruit}")
i += 1
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/1811d608-1aa0-45d8-96dc-18105e74b8cc)
```py
fruits = ["apple", "banana", "cherry"]
i = 0
for fruit in fruits:
print(f"{i + 1}. {fruit}")
i += 1
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [enumerate-for-loop [if-else-block-instead-of-dict-get
(SIM401)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/if-else-block-instead-of-dict-get/#if-else-block-instead-of-dict-get-sim401)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/635629eb-7146-45a8-9e0c-4a0aa9446ded)
```py
if "bar" in foo:
value = foo["bar"]
else:
value = 0
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/a1227ec9-05c2-4a22-800d-c76cb7abe249)
```py
foo = {}
if "bar" in foo:
value = foo["bar"]
else:
value = 0
```
The "Use instead" section was also updated similarly.
The docs for `SIM401` also has another section on the preview ternary
version, but it does not seem to check that the variable is a dict
(bug?) https://play.ruff.rs/c0feada8-a7fe-43f7-b57e-c10520fdcdca
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [reimplemented-builtin
(SIM110)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/reimplemented-builtin/#reimplemented-builtin-sim110)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/1c192e8b-13f8-4f07-8c35-9dcd516a4a02)
```py
for item in iterable:
if predicate(item):
return True
return False
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/f77393ad-20b1-436f-a872-d3bccec7c829)
```py
def foo():
for item in iterable:
if predicate(item):
return True
return False
```
The "Use instead" section was also updated to reflect the change.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [snake-case-type-alias
(PYI042)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/snake-case-type-alias/#snake-case-type-alias-pyi042)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/8fafec81-2228-4ffe-81e8-1989b724cb47)
```py
type_alias_name: TypeAlias = int
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/b396746c-e6d2-423c-bc13-01a533bb0747)
```py
from typing import TypeAlias
type_alias_name: TypeAlias = int
```
Imports were also added to the "use instead" section.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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 fixes the docs for [expressions-in-star-assignment
(F621)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/expressions-in-star-assignment/#expressions-in-star-assignment-f621)
having a backslash `\` before the left shifts `<<`. I'm not sure why
this happened in the first place, as the docstring looks fine, but
putting the `<<` inside a code block fixes it. I was not able to track
down the source of the issue either. The only other rule with a `<<` is
[missing-whitespace-around-bitwise-or-shift-operator
(E227)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/missing-whitespace-around-bitwise-or-shift-operator/#missing-whitespace-around-bitwise-or-shift-operator-e227),
which already has it in a code block.
Old docs page:
> In Python 3, no more than 1 \\<< 8 assignments are allowed before a
starred expression, and no more than 1 \\<< 24 expressions are allowed
after a starred expression.
New docs page:
> In Python 3, no more than `1 << 8` assignments are allowed before a
starred expression, and no more than `1 << 24` expressions are allowed
after a starred expression.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected.
<!--
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [duplicate-literal-member
(PYI062)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/duplicate-literal-member/#duplicate-literal-member-pyi062)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/6b00b41c-c1c5-4421-873d-fc2a143e7337)
```py
foo: Literal["a", "b", "a"]
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/1aea839b-9ae8-4848-bb83-2637e1a68ce4)
```py
from typing import Literal
foo: Literal["a", "b", "a"]
```
Imports were also added to the "use instead" section.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
This PR fixes#19047 / the [isinstance-type-none
(FURB168)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/isinstance-type-none/#isinstance-type-none-furb168)
tuple false positive by adding a check if the tuple is empty to the
code. I also noticed there was another false positive with the other
tuple check in the same function, so I fixed it the same way.
`Union[()]` is invalid at runtime with `TypeError: Cannot take a Union
of no types.`, but it is accepted by `basedpyright`
[playground](https://basedpyright.com/?pythonVersion=3.8&typeCheckingMode=all&code=GYJw9gtgBALgngBwJYDsDmUkQWEMoCqKSYKAsAFAgCmAbtQIYA2A%2BvAtQBREkoDanAJQBdQUA)
and is equivalent to `Never`, so I fixed it anyways. I'm getting on a
side tangent here, but it looks like MyPy doesn't accept it, and ty
[playground](https://play.ty.dev/c2c468b6-38e4-4dd9-a9fa-0276e843e395)
gives `@Todo`.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Added two test cases for the two false positives.
[playground](https://play.ruff.rs/a53afc21-9a1d-4b9b-9346-abfbeabeb449)
<!--
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [datetime-min-max
(DTZ901)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/datetime-min-max/#datetime-min-max-dtz901)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/c1202727-1a18-4d3f-92a4-334ede07ed3e)
```py
datetime.max
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/af2c76aa-9beb-46bc-8e27-faf53ecdbe8c)
```py
import datetime
datetime.datetime.max
```
I also added imports to the problem demonstration and use instead.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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
Make `UP045` ignore `Optional[NamedTuple]` as `NamedTuple` is a function
(not a proper type). Rewriting it to `NamedTuple | None` breaks at
runtime. While type checkers currently accept `NamedTuple` as a type,
they arguably shouldn't. Therefore, we outright ignore it and don't
touch or lint on it.
For a more detailed discussion, see the linked issue.
## Test Plan
Added examples to the existing tests.
## Related Issues
Fixes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18619
<!--
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [call-date-today
(DTZ011)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/call-date-today/#call-date-today-dtz011)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/b42d6aef-7777-4b3b-9f96-19132000b765)
```py
import datetime
datetime.datetime.today()
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/8577c3c1-cfa8-425b-b1e1-4c53b2a48375)
```py
import datetime
datetime.date.today()
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [no-explicit-stacklevel
(B028)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/no-explicit-stacklevel/#no-explicit-stacklevel-b028)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/1ee80aec-2d6e-4a3f-8e98-da82b6a9f544)
```py
warnings.warn("This is a warning")
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/343593aa-38a0-4d76-a32b-5abd0a4306cc)
```py
import warnings
warnings.warn("This is a warning")
```
Imports were also added to the "use instead" section
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [batched-without-explicit-strict
(B911)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/batched-without-explicit-strict/#batched-without-explicit-strict-b911)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/a897d96b-0749-4291-8a62-dfd4caf290a0)
```py
itertools.batched(iterable, n)
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/1c1e0ab7-014c-4dc2-abed-c2cb6cd01f70)
```py
import itertools
itertools.batched(iterable, n)
```
Imports were also added to the "use instead" sections
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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 rule C420's fix. The fix replaces `{...}` with
`dict....(...)`. Therefore, if there is any identifier or such right
before the fix, the fix will fuse that previous token with `dict...`.
The example in the issue is
```python
0 or{x: None for x in "x"}
# gets "fixed" to
0 ordict.fromkeys(iterable)
```
## Related Issues
Fixes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18599
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#18908
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [airflow3-moved-to-provider
(AIR302)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/airflow3-moved-to-provider/#airflow3-moved-to-provider-air302)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/1026c008-57bc-4330-93b9-141444f2a611)
```py
from airflow.auth.managers.fab.fab_auth_manage import FabAuthManager
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/b690e809-a81d-4265-9fde-1494caa0b7fd)
```py
from airflow.auth.managers.fab.fab_auth_manager import FabAuthManager
fab_auth_manager_app = FabAuthManager().get_fastapi_app()
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
<!--
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
Mark `UP008`'s fix safe if it won't delete comments.
## Relevant Issues
Fixes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18533
---------
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? -->
Part of #18972
This PR makes [flask-debug-true
(S201)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/flask-debug-true/#flask-debug-true-s201)'s
example error out-of-the-box
[Old example](https://play.ruff.rs/d5e1a013-1107-4223-9094-0e8393ad3c64)
```py
import flask
app = Flask()
app.run(debug=True)
```
[New example](https://play.ruff.rs/c4aebd2c-0448-4471-8bad-3e38ace68367)
```py
from flask import Flask
app = Flask()
app.run(debug=True)
```
Imports were also added to the `Use instead:` section to make it valid
code out-of-the-box.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
## Summary
Under preview 🧪 I've expanded rule `PYI016` to also flag type
union duplicates containing `None` and `Optional`.
## Test Plan
Examples/tests have been added. I've made sure that the existing
examples did not change unless preview is enabled.
## Relevant Issues
* https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18508 (discussing
introducing/extending a rule to flag `Optional[None]`)
* https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18546 (where I discussed this
addition with @AlexWaygood)
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
I think this should be the last step before combining `OldDiagnostic`
and `ruff_db::Diagnostic`. We can't store a `NoqaCode` on
`ruff_db::Diagnostic`, so I converted the `noqa_code` field to an
`Option<String>` and then propagated this change to all of the callers.
I tried to use `&str` everywhere it was possible, so I think the
remaining `to_string` calls are necessary. I spent some time trying to
convert _everything_ to `&str` but ran into lifetime issues, especially
in the `FixTable`. Maybe we can take another look at that if it causes a
performance regression, but hopefully these paths aren't too hot. We
also avoid some `to_string` calls, so it might even out a bit too.
## Test Plan
Existing tests
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
<!--
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 also supresses the fix if the assignment expression target
shadows one of the lambda's parameters.
Fixes#18675
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression tests.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Part of #15584
This PR adds a fix safety section to [fast-api-non-annotated-dependency
(FAST002)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/fast-api-non-annotated-dependency/#fast-api-non-annotated-dependency-fast002).
It also re-words the availability section since I found it confusing.
The lint/fix was added in #11579 as always unsafe.
No reasoning is given in the original PR/code as to why this was chosen.
Example of why the fix is unsafe:
https://play.ruff.rs/3bd0566e-1ef6-4cec-ae34-3b07cd308155
```py
from fastapi import Depends, FastAPI, Query
app = FastAPI()
# Fix will remove the parameter default value
@app.get("/items/")
async def read_items(commons: dict = Depends(common_parameters)):
return commons
# Fix will delete comment and change default parameter value
@app.get("/items/")
async def read_items_1(q: str = Query( # This comment will be deleted
default="rick")):
return q
```
After fixing both instances of `FAST002`:
```py
from fastapi import Depends, FastAPI, Query
from typing import Annotated
app = FastAPI()
# Fix will remove the parameter default value
@app.get("/items/")
async def read_items(commons: Annotated[dict, Depends(common_parameters)]):
return commons
# Fix will delete comment and change default parameter value
@app.get("/items/")
async def read_items_1(q: Annotated[str, Query()] = "rick"):
return q
```
<!--
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? -->
Here's the part that was split out of #18906. I wanted to move these
into the rule files since the rest of the rules in
`deferred_scope`/`statement` have that same structure of implementations
being in the rule definition file. It also resolves the dilemma of where
to put the comment, at least for these rules.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no test/functionality affected
Summary
--
Closes#18849 by adding a `## Known issues` section describing the
potential performance issues when fixing nested iterables. I also
deleted the comment check since the fix is already unsafe and added a
note to the `## Fix safety` docs.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests, updated to allow a fix when comments are present since
the fix is already unsafe.
Summary
--
This PR resolves the easiest part of
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18502 by adding an autofix that
just adds
`from __future__ import annotations` at the top of the file, in the same
way
as FA102, which already has an identical unsafe fix.
Test Plan
--
Existing snapshots, updated to add the fixes.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
From @ntBre
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18906#discussion_r2162843366 :
> This could be a good target for a follow-up PR, but we could fold
these `if checker.is_rule_enabled { checker.report_diagnostic` checks
into calls to `checker.report_diagnostic_if_enabled`. I didn't notice
these when adding that method.
>
> Also, the docs on `Checker::report_diagnostic_if_enabled` and
`LintContext::report_diagnostic_if_enabled` are outdated now that the
`Rule` conversion is basically free 😅
>
> No pressure to take on this refactor, just an idea if you're
interested!
This PR folds those calls. I also updated the doc comments by copying
from `report_diagnostic`.
Note: It seems odd to me that the doc comment for `Checker` says
`Diagnostic` while `LintContext` says `OldDiagnostic`, not sure if that
needs a bigger docs change to fix the inconsistency.
<details>
<summary>Python script to do the changes</summary>
This script assumes it is placed in the top level `ruff` directory (ie
next to `.git`/`crates`/`README.md`)
```py
import re
from copy import copy
from pathlib import Path
ruff_crates = Path(__file__).parent / "crates"
for path in ruff_crates.rglob("**/*.rs"):
with path.open(encoding="utf-8", newline="") as f:
original_content = f.read()
if "is_rule_enabled" not in original_content or "report_diagnostic" not in original_content:
continue
original_content_position = 0
changed_content = ""
for match in re.finditer(r"(?m)(?:^[ \n]*|(?<=(?P<else>else )))if[ \n]+checker[ \n]*\.is_rule_enabled\([ \n]*Rule::\w+[ \n]*\)[ \n]*{[ \n]*checker\.report_diagnostic\(", original_content):
# Content between last match and start of this one is unchanged
changed_content += original_content[original_content_position:match.start()]
# If this was an else if, a { needs to be added at the start
if match.group("else"):
changed_content += "{"
# This will result in bad formatting, but the precommit cargo format will handle it
changed_content += "checker.report_diagnostic_if_enabled("
# Depth tracking would fail if a string/comment included a { or }, but unlikely given the context
depth = 1
position = match.end()
while depth > 0:
if original_content[position] == "{":
depth += 1
if original_content[position] == "}":
depth -= 1
position += 1
# pos - 1 is the closing }
changed_content += original_content[match.end():position - 1]
# If this was an else if, a } needs to be added at the end
if match.group("else"):
changed_content += "}"
# Skip the closing }
original_content_position = position
if original_content[original_content_position] == "\n":
# If the } is followed by a \n, also skip it for better formatting
original_content_position += 1
# Add remaining content between last match and file end
changed_content += original_content[original_content_position:]
with path.open("w", encoding="utf-8", newline="") as f:
f.write(changed_content)
```
</details>
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected.
<!--
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? -->
While making some of my other changes, I noticed some of the lints were
missing comments with their lint code/had the wrong numbered lint code.
These comments are super useful since they allow for very easily and
quickly finding the source code of a lint, so I decided to try and
normalize them.
Most of them were fairly straightforward, just adding a doc
comment/comment in the appropriate place.
I decided to make all of the `Pylint` rules have the `PL` prefix.
Previously it was split between no prefix and having prefix, but I
decided to normalize to with prefix since that's what's in the docs, and
the with prefix will show up on no prefix searches, while the reverse is
not true.
I also ran into a lot of rules with implementations in "non-standard"
places (where "standard" means inside a file matching the glob
`crates/ruff_linter/rules/*/rules/**/*.rs` and/or the same rule file
where the rule `struct`/`ViolationMetadata` is defined).
I decided to move all the implementations out of
`crates/ruff_linter/src/checkers/ast/analyze/deferred_scopes.rs` and
into their own files, since that is what the rest of the rules in
`deferred_scopes.rs` did, and those were just the outliers.
There were several rules which I did not end up moving, which you can
see as the extra paths I had to add to my python code besides the
"standard" glob. These rules are generally the error-type rules that
just wrap an error from the parser, and have very small
implementations/are very tightly linked to the module they are in, and
generally every rule of that type was implemented in module instead of
in the "standard" place.
Resolving that requires answering a question I don't think I'm equipped
to handle: Is the point of these comments to give quick access to the
rule definition/docs, or the rule implementation? For all the rules with
implementations in the "standard" location this isn't a problem, as they
are the same, but it is an issue for all of these error type rules. In
the end I chose to leave the implementations where they were, but I'm
not sure if that was the right choice.
<details>
<summary>Python script I wrote to find missing comments</summary>
This script assumes it is placed in the top level `ruff` directory (ie
next to `.git`/`crates`/`README.md`)
```py
import re
from copy import copy
from pathlib import Path
linter_to_code_prefix = {
"Airflow": "AIR",
"Eradicate": "ERA",
"FastApi": "FAST",
"Flake82020": "YTT",
"Flake8Annotations": "ANN",
"Flake8Async": "ASYNC",
"Flake8Bandit": "S",
"Flake8BlindExcept": "BLE",
"Flake8BooleanTrap": "FBT",
"Flake8Bugbear": "B",
"Flake8Builtins": "A",
"Flake8Commas": "COM",
"Flake8Comprehensions": "C4",
"Flake8Copyright": "CPY",
"Flake8Datetimez": "DTZ",
"Flake8Debugger": "T10",
"Flake8Django": "DJ",
"Flake8ErrMsg": "EM",
"Flake8Executable": "EXE",
"Flake8Fixme": "FIX",
"Flake8FutureAnnotations": "FA",
"Flake8GetText": "INT",
"Flake8ImplicitStrConcat": "ISC",
"Flake8ImportConventions": "ICN",
"Flake8Logging": "LOG",
"Flake8LoggingFormat": "G",
"Flake8NoPep420": "INP",
"Flake8Pie": "PIE",
"Flake8Print": "T20",
"Flake8Pyi": "PYI",
"Flake8PytestStyle": "PT",
"Flake8Quotes": "Q",
"Flake8Raise": "RSE",
"Flake8Return": "RET",
"Flake8Self": "SLF",
"Flake8Simplify": "SIM",
"Flake8Slots": "SLOT",
"Flake8TidyImports": "TID",
"Flake8Todos": "TD",
"Flake8TypeChecking": "TC",
"Flake8UnusedArguments": "ARG",
"Flake8UsePathlib": "PTH",
"Flynt": "FLY",
"Isort": "I",
"McCabe": "C90",
"Numpy": "NPY",
"PandasVet": "PD",
"PEP8Naming": "N",
"Perflint": "PERF",
"Pycodestyle": "",
"Pydoclint": "DOC",
"Pydocstyle": "D",
"Pyflakes": "F",
"PygrepHooks": "PGH",
"Pylint": "PL",
"Pyupgrade": "UP",
"Refurb": "FURB",
"Ruff": "RUF",
"Tryceratops": "TRY",
}
ruff = Path(__file__).parent / "crates"
ruff_linter = ruff / "ruff_linter" / "src"
code_to_rule_name = {}
with open(ruff_linter / "codes.rs") as codes_file:
for linter, code, rule_name in re.findall(
# The (?<! skips ruff test rules
# Only Preview|Stable rules are checked
r"(?<!#\[cfg\(any\(feature = \"test-rules\", test\)\)\]\n) \((\w+), \"(\w+)\"\) => \(RuleGroup::(?:Preview|Stable), [\w:]+::(\w+)\)",
codes_file.read(),
):
code_to_rule_name[linter_to_code_prefix[linter] + code] = (rule_name, [])
ruff_linter_rules = ruff_linter / "rules"
for rule_file_path in [
*ruff_linter_rules.rglob("*/rules/**/*.rs"),
ruff / "ruff_python_parser" / "src" / "semantic_errors.rs",
ruff_linter / "pyproject_toml.rs",
ruff_linter / "checkers" / "noqa.rs",
ruff_linter / "checkers" / "ast" / "mod.rs",
ruff_linter / "checkers" / "ast" / "analyze" / "unresolved_references.rs",
ruff_linter / "checkers" / "ast" / "analyze" / "expression.rs",
ruff_linter / "checkers" / "ast" / "analyze" / "statement.rs",
]:
with open(rule_file_path, encoding="utf-8") as f:
rule_file_content = f.read()
for code, (rule, _) in copy(code_to_rule_name).items():
if rule in rule_file_content:
if f"// {code}" in rule_file_content or f", {code}" in rule_file_content:
del code_to_rule_name[code]
else:
code_to_rule_name[code][1].append(rule_file_path)
for code, rule in code_to_rule_name.items():
print(code, rule[0])
for path in rule[1]:
print(path)
```
</details>
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected.
## Summary
This PR expands PGH005 to also check for AsyncMock methods in the same
vein. E.g., currently `assert mock.not_called` is linted. This PR adds
the corresponding async assertions `assert mock.not_awaited()`.
---------
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
/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
This PR removes the last two places we were using `NoqaCode::rule` in
`linter.rs` (see
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391#discussion_r2154637329 and
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391#discussion_r2154649726) by
checking whether fixes are actually desired before adding them to a
`DiagnosticGuard`. I implemented this by storing a `Violation`'s `Rule`
on the `DiagnosticGuard` so that we could check if it was enabled in the
embedded `LinterSettings` when trying to set a fix.
All of the corresponding `set_fix` methods on `OldDiagnostic` were now
unused (except in tests where I just set `.fix` directly), so I moved
these to the guard instead of keeping both sets.
The very last place where we were using `NoqaCode::rule` was in the
cache. I just reverted this to parsing the `Rule` from the name. I had
forgotten to update the comment there anyway. Hopefully this doesn't
cause too much of a perf hit.
In terms of binary size, we're back down almost to where `main` was two
days ago
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391#discussion_r2155034320):
```
41,559,344 bytes for main 2 days ago
41,669,840 bytes for #18391
41,653,760 bytes for main now (after #18391 merged)
41,602,224 bytes for this branch
```
Only 43 kb up, but that shouldn't all be me this time :)
## Test Plan
Existing tests and benchmarks on this PR
## 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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Part of #15584
This adds a `Fix safety` section to [useless-object-inheritance
(UP004)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/useless-object-inheritance/#useless-object-inheritance-up004)
I could not track down the original PR as this rule is so old it has
gone through several large ruff refactors.
No reasoning is given on the unsafety in the PR/code.
The unsafety is determined here:
f24e650dfd/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/useless_class_metaclass_type.rs (L76-L80)
Unsafe fix demonstration:
[playground](https://play.ruff.rs/12b24eb4-d7a5-4ae0-93bb-492d64967ae3)
```py
class A( # will be deleted
object
):
...
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected
<!--
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? -->
Part of #15584
This adds a `Fix safety` section to [unnecessary-future-import
(UP010)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/unnecessary-future-import/#unnecessary-future-import-up010)
The unsafety is determined here:
d9266284df/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/unnecessary_future_import.rs (L128-L132)
Unsafe code example:
[playground](https://play.ruff.rs/c07d8c41-9ab8-4b86-805b-8cf482d450d9)
```py
from __future__ import (print_function,# ...
__annotations__) # ...
```
Edit: It looks like there was already a PR for this, #17490, but I
missed it since they said `UP029` instead of `UP010` :/
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected
<!--
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>
A little bit of cleanup for consistency's sake: we move all the helpers
modules to a consistent location, and update the import paths when
needed. In the case of `refurb` there were two helpers modules, so we
just merged them.
Happy to revert the last commit if people are okay with `super::super` I
just thought it looked a little silly.
<!--
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
<!--
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? -->
I noticed this since my code for finding missing safety fix sections
flagged it, there is a missing `/` causing part of the new changes to be
a normal comment instead of a doc comment
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
## 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>
## Summary
This PR avoids one of the three calls to `NoqaCode::rule` from
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391 by applying per-file
ignores in the `LintContext`. To help with this, it also replaces all
direct uses of `LinterSettings.rules.enabled` with a
`LintContext::enabled` (or `Checker::enabled`, which defers to its
context) method. There are still some direct accesses to
`settings.rules`, but as far as I can tell these are not in a part of
the code where we can really access a `LintContext`. I believe all of
the code reachable from `check_path`, where the replaced per-file ignore
code was, should be converted to the new methods.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, with a single snapshot updated for RUF100, which I think
actually shows a more accurate diagnostic message now.
<!--
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? -->
<!--
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? -->
While reading the docs I noticed this paragraph on `PERF401`. It was
added in the same PR that the bug with `:=` was fixed, #15050, but don't
know why it was added. The fix should already take care of adding the
parenthesis, so having this paragraph in the docs is just confusing
since it sounds like the user has to do something.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected
## 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>
<!--
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? -->
Part of #15584
This PR adds a fix safety section to `PIE794`
I could not track down when this rule was initially implemented/made
unsafe due how old it could be + multiple large refactors to `ruff`.
There is no comment/reasoning in the code given for the unsafety.
Here is a code example demonstrating why it should be unsafe, since
removing any of the assignments would change program behavior
[playground](https://play.ruff.rs/01004644-4259-4449-a581-5007cd59846a)
```py
class A:
x = 1
x = 2
print(x)
class B:
x = print(3)
x = print(4)
class C:
x = [1,2,3]
y = x
x = y[1]
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests affected.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dylan <dylwil3@gmail.com>
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.
Summary
--
This PR unifies the remaining differences between `OldDiagnostic` and
`Message` (`OldDiagnostic` was only missing an optional `noqa_offset`
field) and
replaces `Message` with `OldDiagnostic`.
The biggest functional difference is that the combined `OldDiagnostic`
kind no
longer implements `AsRule` for an infallible conversion to `Rule`. This
was
pretty easy to work around with `is_some_and` and `is_none_or` in the
few places
it was needed. In `LintContext::report_diagnostic_if_enabled` we can
just use
the new `Violation::rule` method, which takes care of most cases.
Most of the interesting changes are in [this
range](8156992540)
before I started renaming.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
Future Work
--
I think it's time to start shifting some of these fields to the new
`Diagnostic`
kind. I believe we want `Fix` for sure, but I'm less sure about the
others. We
may want to keep a thin wrapper type here anyway to implement a `rule`
method,
so we could leave some of these fields on that too.
## Summary
This PR avoids the `Vec::retain` call in `check_tokens` by checking if
rules are enabled as their diagnostics are constructed.
2a425e43fd/crates/ruff_linter/src/checkers/tokens.rs (L174-L176)
Since `LintContext::report_diagnostic_if_enabled` required a
`LinterSettings`, I added a `settings` field to the context itself
instead of trying to pass it everywhere. This also turned
`LogicalLinesContext` into a trivial wrapper around `LintContext`, so I
just removed it in favor of using `LintContext` directly too.
The diff is a bit smaller with whitespace hidden since many blocks got
moved into something like this:
```rust
if let Some(mut diagnostic) = context.report_diagnostic.enabled(...) {
// old code
}
```
## Test Plan
Existing tests
When I try to grep CPython with `__super__` I get 0 results:
```
(.venv) ~/Desktop/cpython main ✔
» ag __super__ .
```
That's how we can understand that the naming is not the best.
This involved slightly more code changes than usual for a stabilization
- so maybe worth double-checking the logic!
I did verify by hand that the new stable behavior on the test fixture
matches the old preview behavior, even after the internal refactor.
Summary
--
Deprecates PD901 as part of #7710. I don't feel particularly strongly
about this one, though I have certainly used `df` as a dataframe name in
the past, just going through the open issues in the 0.12 milestone.
Test Plan
--
N/a
## Summary
- Stabilizes RUF058 (starmap-zip) rule by changing it from Preview to
Stable
- Migrates test cases from preview_rules to main rules function
- Updates snapshots accordingly and removes old preview snapshots
## Test plan
- ✅ Migrated tests from preview to main test function
- ✅ `make check` passes
- ✅ `make test` passes
- ✅ `make citest` passes (no leftover snapshots)
## Rule Documentation
- [Test
file](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/main/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/ruff/mod.rs#L103-L104)
- [Rule documentation](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/starmap-zip/)
## Summary
Stabilizes the UP049 rule (private-type-parameter) by moving it from
Preview to Stable.
UP049 detects and fixes the use of private type parameters (those with
leading underscores) in PEP 695 generic classes and functions.
## Test plan
- Verified that UP049 tests pass:
`crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pyupgrade/mod.rs`
- Ran full test suite with `make test`
- Confirmed that no test migration was needed as UP049 was already in
the main `rules` test function
## Rule documentation
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/private-type-parameter/
Note that the preview behavior was not documented (shame on us!) so the
documentation was not modified.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
This PR stabilizes the FURB162 rule by moving it from preview to stable
status for the 0.12.0 release.
## Summary
- **Rule**: FURB162 (`fromisoformat-replace-z`)
- **Purpose**: Detects unnecessary timezone replacement operations when
calling `datetime.fromisoformat()`
- **Change**: Move from `RuleGroup::Preview` to `RuleGroup::Stable` in
`codes.rs`
## Verification Links
- **Tests**:
[refurb/mod.rs](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/main/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/refurb/mod.rs#L54)
- Confirms FURB162 has only standard tests, no preview-specific test
cases
- **Documentation**:
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/fromisoformat-replace-z/ - Current
documentation shows preview status that will be automatically updated
This PR stabilizes the RUF053 rule by moving it from preview to stable
status for the 0.12.0 release.
## Summary
- **Rule**: RUF053 (`class-with-mixed-type-vars`)
- **Purpose**: Detects classes that have both PEP 695 type parameter
lists while also inheriting from `typing.Generic`
- **Change**: Move from `RuleGroup::Preview` to `RuleGroup::Stable` in
`codes.rs` and migrate preview tests to stable tests
## Verification Links
- **Tests**:
[ruff/mod.rs](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/main/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/ruff/mod.rs#L98)
- Shows RUF053 moved from preview_rules to main rules test function
- **Documentation**:
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/class-with-mixed-type-vars/ - Current
documentation shows preview status that will be automatically updated
Note that the preview behavior was not documented (shame on us!) so the
documentation was not modified.
---------
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#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
Garbage collect ASTs once we are done checking a given file. Queries
with a cross-file dependency on the AST will reparse the file on demand.
This reduces ty's peak memory usage by ~20-30%.
The primary change of this PR is adding a `node_index` field to every
AST node, that is assigned by the parser. `ParsedModule` can use this to
create a flat index of AST nodes any time the file is parsed (or
reparsed). This allows `AstNodeRef` to simply index into the current
instance of the `ParsedModule`, instead of storing a pointer directly.
The indices are somewhat hackily (using an atomic integer) assigned by
the `parsed_module` query instead of by the parser directly. Assigning
the indices in source-order in the (recursive) parser turns out to be
difficult, and collecting the nodes during semantic indexing is
impossible as `SemanticIndex` does not hold onto a specific
`ParsedModuleRef`, which the pointers in the flat AST are tied to. This
means that we have to do an extra AST traversal to assign and collect
the nodes into a flat index, but the small performance impact (~3% on
cold runs) seems worth it for the memory savings.
Part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/214.
## 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
--
Updates the rule docs to explicitly state how cases like
`Decimal("0.1")` are handled (not affected) because the discussion of
"float casts" referring to values like `nan` and `inf` is otherwise a
bit confusing.
These changes are based on suggestions from @AlexWaygood on Notion, with
a slight adjustment to use 0.1 instead of 0.5 since it causes a more
immediate issue in the REPL:
```pycon
>>> from decimal import Decimal
>>> Decimal(0.5) == Decimal("0.5")
True
>>> Decimal(0.1) == Decimal("0.1")
False
```
Test plan
--
N/a
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Summary
--
This PR updates the docs for PLW1641 to place less emphasis on the
example of inheriting a parent class's `__hash__` implementation by both
reducing the length of the example and warning that it may be unsound in
general, as @AlexWaygood pointed out on Notion.
Test plan
--
Existing tests
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## 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>
## Summary
As the title says, this PR removes the `Message::to_rule` method by
replacing related uses of `Rule` with `NoqaCode` (or the rule's name in
the case of the cache). Where it seemed a `Rule` was really needed, we
convert back to the `Rule` by parsing either the rule name (with
`str::parse`) or the `NoqaCode` (with `Rule::from_code`).
I thought this was kind of like cheating and that it might not resolve
this part of Micha's
[comment](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391#issuecomment-2933764275):
> because we can't add Rule to Diagnostic or **have it anywhere in our
shared rendering logic**
but after looking again, the only remaining `Rule` conversion in
rendering code is for the SARIF output format. The other two non-test
`Rule` conversions are for caching and writing a fix summary, which I
don't think fall into the shared rendering logic. That leaves the SARIF
format as the only real problem, but maybe we can delay that for now.
The motivation here is that we won't be able to store a `Rule` on the
new `Diagnostic` type, but we should be able to store a `NoqaCode`,
likely as a string.
## Test Plan
Existing tests
##
[Benchmarks](https://codspeed.io/astral-sh/ruff/branches/brent%2Fremove-to-rule)
Almost no perf regression, only -1% on
`linter/default-rules[large/dataset.py]`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
<!--
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 #18387
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
update snapshots
<!-- 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
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18387#issuecomment-2923039331
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
update snapshots
<!-- 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
Mark `FURB180`'s fix as unsafe if the class already has base classes.
This is because the base classes might validate the other base classes
(like `typing.Protocol` does) or otherwise alter runtime behavior if
more base classes are added.
## Test Plan
The existing snapshot test covers this case already.
## References
Partially addresses https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/13307 (left
out way to permit certain exceptions)
---------
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
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
Summary
--
This is the last main difference between the `OldDiagnostic` and
`Message`
types, so attaching a `SourceFile` to `OldDiagnostic` should make
combining the
two types almost trivial.
Initially I updated the remaining rules without access to a `Checker` to
take a
`&SourceFile` directly, but after Micha's suggestion in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18356#discussion_r2113281552, I
updated all of these calls to take a
`LintContext` instead. This new type is a thin wrapper around a
`RefCell<Vec<OldDiagnostic>>`
and a `SourceFile` and now has the `report_diagnostic` method returning
a `DiagnosticGuard` instead of `Checker`.
This allows the same `Drop`-based implementation to be used in cases
without a `Checker` and also avoids a lot of intermediate allocations of
`Vec<OldDiagnostic>`s.
`Checker` now also contains a `LintContext`, which it defers to for its
`report_diagnostic` methods, which I preserved for convenience.
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? -->
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
--
It's a bit late in the refactoring process, but I think there are still
a couple of PRs left before getting rid of this type entirely, so I
thought it would still be worth doing.
This PR is just a quick rename with no other changes.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
## 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>
## Summary
This PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `B006` in
`mutable_argument_default.rs` for #15584
When applying this rule for fixes, certain changes may alter the
original logical behavior. For example:
before:
```python
def cache(x, storage=[]):
storage.append(x)
return storage
print(cache(1)) # [1]
print(cache(2)) # [1, 2]
```
after:
```python
def cache(x, storage=[]):
storage.append(x)
return storage
print(cache(1)) # [1]
print(cache(2)) # [2]
```
<!--
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
Summary
--
This PR adds a `DiagnosticGuard` type to ruff that is adapted from the
`DiagnosticGuard` and `LintDiagnosticGuard` types from ty. This guard is
returned by `Checker::report_diagnostic` and derefs to a
`ruff_diagnostics::Diagnostic` (`OldDiagnostic`), allowing methods like
`OldDiagnostic::set_fix` to be called on the result. On `Drop` the
`DiagnosticGuard` pushes its contained `OldDiagnostic` to the `Checker`.
The main motivation for this is to make a following PR adding a
`SourceFile` to each diagnostic easier. For every rule where a `Checker`
is available, this will now only require modifying
`Checker::report_diagnostic` rather than all the rules.
In the few cases where we need to create a diagnostic before we know if
we actually want to emit it, there is a `DiagnosticGuard::defuse`
method, which consumes the guard without emitting the diagnostic. I was
able to restructure about half of the rules that naively called this to
avoid calling it, but a handful of rules still need it.
One of the fairly common patterns where `defuse` was needed initially
was something like
```rust
let diagnostic = Diagnostic::new(DiagnosticKind, range);
if !checker.enabled(diagnostic.rule()) {
return;
}
```
So I also added a `Checker::checked_report_diagnostic` method that
handles this check internally. That helped to avoid some additional
`defuse` calls. The name is a bit repetitive, so I'm definitely open to
suggestions there. I included a warning against using it in the docs
since, as we've seen, the conversion from a diagnostic to a rule is
actually pretty expensive.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
Summary
--
I thought that emitting multiple diagnostics at once would be difficult
to port to a diagnostic construction model closer to ty's
`InferContext::report_lint`, so as a first step toward that, this PR
removes `Checker::report_diagnostics`.
In many cases I was able to do some related refactoring to avoid
allocating a `Vec<Diagnostic>` at all, often by adding a `Checker` field
to a `Visitor` or by passing a `Checker` instead of a `&mut
Vec<Diagnostic>`.
In other cases, I had to fall back on something like
```rust
for diagnostic in diagnostics {
checker.report_diagnostic(diagnostic);
}
```
which I guess is a bit worse than the `extend` call in
`report_diagnostics`, but hopefully it won't make too much of a
difference.
I'm still not quite sure what to do with the remaining loop cases. The
two main use cases for collecting a sequence of diagnostics before
emitting any of them are:
1. Applying a single `Fix` to a group of diagnostics
2. Avoiding an earlier diagnostic if something goes wrong later
I was hoping we could get away with just a `DiagnosticGuard` that
reported a `Diagnostic` on drop, but I guess we will still need a
`DiagnosticGuardBuilder` that can be collected in these cases and
produce a `DiagnosticGuard` once we know we actually want the
diagnostics.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `SIM110` (#15584 )
### Unsafe Fix Example
```python
def predicate(item):
global called
called += 1
if called == 1:
# after first call we change the method
def new_predicate(_): return False
globals()['predicate'] = new_predicate
return True
def foo():
for item in range(10):
if predicate(item):
return True
return False
def foo_gen():
return any(predicate(item) for item in range(10))
called = 0
print(foo()) # true – returns immediately on first call
called = 0
print(foo_gen()) # false – second call uses new `predicate`
```
### Note
I notice that
[here](46be305ad2/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/flake8_simplify/rules/reimplemented_builtin.rs (L60))
we have two rules, `SIM110` & `SIM111`. The second one seems not anymore
active. Should I delete `SIM111`?
## Summary
This PR unifies the ruff `Message` enum variants for syntax errors and
rule violations into a single `Message` struct consisting of a shared
`db::Diagnostic` and some additional, optional fields used for some rule
violations.
This version of `Message` is nearly a drop-in replacement for
`ruff_diagnostics::Diagnostic`, which is the next step I have in mind
for the refactor.
I think this is also a useful checkpoint because we could possibly add
some of these optional fields to the new `Diagnostic` type. I think
we've previously discussed wanting support for `Fix`es, but the other
fields seem less relevant, so we may just need to preserve the `Message`
wrapper for a bit longer.
## Test plan
Existing tests
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
<!--
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? -->
Summary
--
I noticed these `cfg` directives while working on diagnostics. I think
it makes more sense to apply an `insta` filter in the test instead. I
copied this filter from a CLI test for the same rule.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests, especially Windows CI on this PR
The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `SIM210` (#15584 )
It is a little cheating, as the Fix safety section is copy/pasted by
#18086 as the problem is the same.
### Unsafe Fix Example
```python
class Foo():
def __eq__(self, other):
return 0
def foo():
return True if Foo() == 0 else False
def foo_fix():
return Foo() == 0
print(foo()) # False
print(foo_fix()) # 0
```
<!--
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? -->
<!--
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? -->
`ProviderReplacement::Name` was designed back when we only wanted to do
linting. Now we also want to fix the user code. It would be easier for
us to replace them with better AutoImport struct.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixture has been updated as some cases can now be fixed
## Summary
This PR deletes the `DiagnosticKind` type by inlining its three fields
(`name`, `body`, and `suggestion`) into three other diagnostic types:
`Diagnostic`, `DiagnosticMessage`, and `CacheMessage`.
Instead of deferring to an internal `DiagnosticKind`, both `Diagnostic`
and `DiagnosticMessage` now have their own macro-generated `AsRule`
implementations.
This should make both https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18051 and
another follow-up PR changing the type of `name` on `CacheMessage`
easier since its type will be able to change separately from
`Diagnostic` and `DiagnosticMessage`.
## Test Plan
Existing tests
The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `SIM103` (#15584 )
### Unsafe Fix Example
```python
class Foo:
def __eq__(self, other):
return 1
def foo():
if Foo() == 1:
return True
return False
def foo_fix():
return Foo() == 1
print(foo()) # True
print(foo_fix()) # 1
```
### Note
I updated the code snippet example, because I thought it was cool to
have a correct example, i.e., that I can paste inside the playground and
it works :-)
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
The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `RUF007` (#15584 )
It seems that the fix was always marked as unsafe #14401
## Unsafety example
This first example is a little extreme. In fact, the class `Foo`
overrides the `__getitem__` method but in a very special, way. The
difference lies in the fact that `zip(letters, letters[1:])` call the
slice `letters[1:]` which is behaving weird in this case, while
`itertools.pairwise(letters)` call just `__getitem__(0), __getitem__(1),
...` and so on.
Note that the diagnostic is emitted: [playground](https://play.ruff.rs)
I don't know if we want to mention this problem, as there is a subtile
bug in the python implementation of `Foo` which make the rule unsafe.
```python
from dataclasses import dataclass
import itertools
@dataclass
class Foo:
letters: str
def __getitem__(self, index):
return self.letters[index] + "_foo"
letters = Foo("ABCD")
zip_ = zip(letters, letters[1:])
for a, b in zip_:
print(a, b) # A_foo B, B_foo C, C_foo D, D_foo _
pair = itertools.pairwise(letters)
for a, b in pair:
print(a, b) # A_foo B_foo, B_foo C_foo, C_foo D_foo
```
This other example is much probable.
here, `itertools.pairwise` was shadowed by a costume function
[(playground)](https://play.ruff.rs)
```python
from dataclasses import dataclass
from itertools import pairwise
def pairwise(a):
return []
letters = "ABCD"
zip_ = zip(letters, letters[1:])
print([(a, b) for a, b in zip_]) # [('A', 'B'), ('B', 'C'), ('C', 'D')]
pair = pairwise(letters)
print(pair) # []
```
<!--
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? -->
Re: #17526
## Summary
Add integration test for semantic syntax for `IrrefutableCasePattern`,
`SingleStarredAssignment`, `WriteToDebug`, and `InvalidExpression`.
## Notes
- Following @ntBre's suggestion, I will keep the test coming in batches
like this over the next few days in separate PRs to keep the review load
per PR manageable while also not spamming too many.
- I did not add a test for `del __debug__` which is one of the examples
in `crates/ruff_python_parser/src/semantic_errors.rs:1051`.
For python version `<= 3.8` there is no error and for `>=3.9` the error
is not `WriteToDebug` but `SyntaxError: cannot delete __debug__ on
Python 3.9 (syntax was removed in 3.9)`.
- The `blacken-docs` bypass is necessary because otherwise the test does
not pass pre-commit checks; but we want to check for this faulty syntax.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
This is a test.
<!--
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
This PR is a first step toward integration of the new `Diagnostic` type
into ruff. There are two main changes:
- A new `UnifiedFile` enum wrapping `File` for red-knot and a
`SourceFile` for ruff
- ruff's `Message::SyntaxError` variant is now a `Diagnostic` instead of
a `SyntaxErrorMessage`
The second of these changes was mostly just a proof of concept for the
first, and it went pretty smoothly. Converting `DiagnosticMessage`s will
be most of the work in replacing `Message` entirely.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, which show no changes.
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
This PR partially addresses #16418 via the following:
- `LinterSettings::unresolved_python_version` is now a `TargetVersion`,
which is a thin wrapper around an `Option<PythonVersion>`
- `Checker::target_version` now calls `TargetVersion::linter_version`
internally, which in turn uses `unwrap_or_default` to preserve the
current default behavior
- Calls to the parser now call `TargetVersion::parser_version`, which
calls `unwrap_or_else(PythonVersion::latest)`
- The `Checker`'s implementation of
`SemanticSyntaxContext::python_version` also uses
`TargetVersion::parser_version` to use `PythonVersion::latest` for
semantic errors
In short, all lint rule behavior should be unchanged, but we default to
the latest Python version for the new syntax errors, which should
minimize confusing version-related syntax errors for users without a
version configured.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, which showed no changes (except for printing default
settings).
## 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.
The PR add the fix safety section for rule `RUF013`
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/15584 )
The fix was introduced here #4831
The rule as a lot of False Negative (as it is explained in the docs of
the rule).
The main reason because the fix is unsafe is that it could change code
generation tools behaviour, as in the example here:
```python
def generate_api_docs(func):
hints = get_type_hints(func)
for param, hint in hints.items():
if is_optional_type(hint):
print(f"Parameter '{param}' is optional")
else:
print(f"Parameter '{param}' is required")
# Before fix
def create_user(name: str, roles: list[str] = None):
pass
# After fix
def create_user(name: str, roles: Optional[list[str]] = None):
pass
# Generated docs would change from "roles is required" to "roles is optional"
```
<!--
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? -->
Re: #17526
## Summary
Add integration tests for Python Semantic Syntax for
`InvalidStarExpression`, `DuplicateMatchKey`, and
`DuplicateMatchClassAttribute`.
## Note
- Red knot integration tests for `DuplicateMatchKey` exist already in
line 89-101.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
This is a test.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
When attempting to determine whether `import foo.bar.baz` is a known
first-party import relative to [user-provided source
paths](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/settings/#src), when `preview` is
enabled we now check that `SRC/foo/bar/baz` is a directory or
`SRC/foo/bar/baz.py` or `SRC/foo/bar/baz.pyi` exist.
Previously, we just checked the analogous thing for `SRC/foo`, but this
can be misleading in situations with disjoint namespace packages that
share a common base name (e.g. we may be working inside the namespace
package `foo.buzz` and importing `foo.bar` from elsewhere).
Supersedes #12987Closes#12984
<!--
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`
<!--
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 `airflow.utils.dag_parsing_context.get_parsing_context` from
AIR301 as it has been moved to AIR311
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
the test fixture was updated in the previous PR
This PR updates the semantic model for Python 3.14 by essentially
equating "run using Python 3.14" with "uses `from __future__ import
annotations`".
While this is not technically correct under the hood, it appears to be
correct for the purposes of our semantic model. That is: from the point
of view of deciding when to parse, bind, etc. annotations, these two
contexts behave the same. More generally these contexts behave the same
unless you are performing some kind of introspection like the following:
Without future import:
```pycon
>>> from annotationlib import get_annotations,Format
>>> def foo()->Bar:...
...
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.FORWARDREF)
{'return': ForwardRef('Bar')}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.STRING)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.VALUE)
Traceback (most recent call last):
[...]
NameError: name 'Bar' is not defined
>>> get_annotations(foo)
Traceback (most recent call last):
[...]
NameError: name 'Bar' is not defined
```
With future import:
```
>>> from __future__ import annotations
>>> from annotationlib import get_annotations,Format
>>> def foo()->Bar:...
...
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.FORWARDREF)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.STRING)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.VALUE)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo)
{'return': 'Bar'}
```
(Note: the result of the last call to `get_annotations` in these
examples relies on the fact that, as of this writing, the default value
for `format` is `Format.VALUE`).
If one day we support lint rules targeting code that introspects using
the new `annotationlib`, then it is possible we will need to revisit our
approximation.
Closes#15100
## 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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
This is not yet fixing anything as the names are not changed, but it
lays down the foundation for fixing.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
the existing test fixture should already cover this change
Re: #17526
## Summary
Adds tests to red knot and `linter.rs` for the semantic syntax.
Specifically add tests for `ReboundComprehensionVariable`,
`DuplicateTypeParameter`, and `MultipleCaseAssignment`.
Refactor the `test_async_comprehension_in_sync_comprehension` →
`test_semantic_error` to be more general for all semantic syntax test
cases.
## Test Plan
This is a test.
## Question
I'm happy to contribute more tests the coming days.
Should that happen here or should we merge this PR such that the
refactor `test_async_comprehension_in_sync_comprehension` →
`test_semantic_error` is available on main and others can chime in, too?
## Summary
Includes minor changes to the semantic type inference to help detect the
return type of function call.
Fixes#17691
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests
A small PR that just updates the various settings/configurations to
allow Python 3.14. At the moment selecting that target version will
have no impact compared to Python 3.13 - except that a warning
is emitted if the user does so with `preview` disabled.
## 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
Summary
--
This PR resolves https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9761 by adding
a linter configuration option to disable
`typing_extensions` imports. As mentioned [here], it would be ideal if
we could
detect whether or not `typing_extensions` is available as a dependency
automatically, but this seems like a much easier fix in the meantime.
The default for the new option, `typing-extensions`, is `true`,
preserving the current behavior. Setting it to `false` will bail out of
the new
`Checker::typing_importer` method, which has been refactored from the
`Checker::import_from_typing` method in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17340),
with `None`, which is then handled specially by each rule that calls it.
I considered some alternatives to a config option, such as checking if
`typing_extensions` has been imported or checking for a `TYPE_CHECKING`
block we could use, but I think defaulting to allowing
`typing_extensions` imports and allowing the user to disable this with
an option is both simple to implement and pretty intuitive.
[here]:
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9761#issuecomment-2790492853
Test Plan
--
New linter tests exercising several combinations of Python versions and
the new config option for PYI019. I also added tests for the other
affected rules, but only in the case where the new config option is
enabled. The rules' existing tests also cover the default case.
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!
This PR collects all behavior gated under preview into a new module
`ruff_linter::preview` that exposes functions like
`is_my_new_feature_enabled` - just as is done in the formatter crate.
The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `RUF027` (#15584 ).
Actually, I have an example of a false positive. Should I include it in
the` fix safety` section?
---------
Co-authored-by: Dylan <dylwil3@gmail.com>
The PR add the fix safety section for rule `FLY002` (#15584 )
The motivation for the content of the fix safety section is given by the
following example
```python
foo = 1
bar = [2, 3]
try:
result_join = " ".join((foo, bar))
print(f"Join result: {result_join}")
except TypeError as e:
print(f"Join error: {e}")
```
which print `Join error: sequence item 0: expected str instance, int
found`
But after the fix is applied, we have
```python
foo = 1
bar = [2, 3]
try:
result_join = f"{foo} {bar}"
print(f"Join result: {result_join}")
except TypeError as e:
print(f"Join error: {e}")
```
which print `Join result: 1 [2, 3]`
---------
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `ASYNC116` in
`long_sleep_not_forever.rs` for #15584
---------
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@gmail.com>
## 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
Part of #17412
Add a new compile-time syntax error for detecting `nonlocal`
declarations at a module level.
## Test Plan
- Added new inline tests for the syntax error
- Updated existing tests for `nonlocal` statement parsing to be inside a
function scope
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
While adding semantic error support to red-knot, I noticed duplicate
diagnostics for code like this:
```py
# error: [invalid-syntax] "cannot use an asynchronous comprehension outside of an asynchronous function on Python 3.9 (syntax was added in 3.11)"
# error: [invalid-syntax] "`asynchronous comprehension` outside of an asynchronous function"
[reveal_type(x) async for x in AsyncIterable()]
```
Beyond the duplication, the first error message doesn't make much sense
because this syntax is _not_ allowed on Python 3.11 either.
To fix this, this PR renames the
`async-comprehension-outside-async-function` semantic syntax error to
`async-comprehension-in-sync-comprehension` and fixes the rule to avoid
applying outside of sync comprehensions at all.
## Test Plan
New linter test demonstrating the false positive. The mdtests from my red-knot
PR also reflect this change.
Status
--
This is a pretty minor change, but it was breaking a red-knot mdtest
until #17463 landed. Now this should close#11934 as the last syntax
error being tracked there!
Summary
--
Moves `Parser::validate_parameters` to
`SemanticSyntaxChecker::duplicate_parameter_name`.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests, with `## Errors` replaced with `## Semantic Syntax
Errors`.
## 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 pull request fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/17014
changes this
```python
from __future__ import annotations
flag1 = True
flag2 = True
if flag1 == True or flag2 == True:
pass
if flag1 == False and flag2 == False:
pass
flag3 = True
if flag1 == flag3 and (flag2 == False or flag3 == True): # Should become: if flag1==flag3 and (not flag2 or flag3)
pass
if flag1 == True and (flag2 == False or not flag3 == True): # Should become: if flag1 and (not flag2 or not flag3)
pass
if flag1 != True and (flag2 != False or not flag3 == True): # Should become: if not flag1 and (flag2 or not flag3)
pass
flag = True
while flag == True: # Should become: while flag
flag = False
flag = True
x = 5
if flag == True and x > 0: # Should become: if flag and x > 0
print("ok")
flag = True
result = "yes" if flag == True else "no" # Should become: result = "yes" if flag else "no"
x = flag == True < 5
x = (flag == True) == False < 5
```
to this
```python
from __future__ import annotations
flag1 = True
flag2 = True
if flag1 or flag2:
pass
if not flag1 and not flag2:
pass
flag3 = True
if flag1 == flag3 and (not flag2 or flag3): # Should become: if flag1 == flag3 and (not flag2 or flag3)
pass
if flag1 and (not flag2 or not flag3): # Should become: if flag1 and (not flag2 or not flag3)
pass
if not flag1 and (flag2 or not flag3): # Should become: if not flag1 and (flag2 or not flag3)
pass
flag = True
while flag: # Should become: while flag
flag = False
flag = True
x = 5
if flag and x > 0: # Should become: if flag and x > 0
print("ok")
flag = True
result = "yes" if flag else "no" # Should become: result = "yes" if flag else "no"
x = flag is True < 5
x = (flag) is False < 5
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Summary
--
This PR extends semantic syntax error detection to red-knot. The main
changes here are:
1. Adding `SemanticSyntaxChecker` and `Vec<SemanticSyntaxError>` fields
to the `SemanticIndexBuilder`
2. Calling `SemanticSyntaxChecker::visit_stmt` and `visit_expr` in the
`SemanticIndexBuilder`'s `visit_stmt` and `visit_expr` methods
3. Implementing `SemanticSyntaxContext` for `SemanticIndexBuilder`
4. Adding new mdtests to test the context implementation and show
diagnostics
(3) is definitely the trickiest and required (I think) a minor addition
to the `SemanticIndexBuilder`. I tried to look around for existing code
performing the necessary checks, but I definitely could have missed
something or misused the existing code even when I found it.
There's still one TODO around `global` statement handling. I don't think
there's an existing way to look this up, but I'm happy to work on that
here or in a separate PR. This currently only affects detection of one
error (`LoadBeforeGlobalDeclaration` or
[PLE0118](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/load-before-global-declaration/)
in ruff), so it's not too big of a problem even if we leave the TODO.
Test Plan
--
New mdtests, as well as new errors for existing mdtests
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
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()`.
## Summary
add fix safety section to replace_stdout_stderr and
super_call_with_parameters, for #15584
I checked the behavior and found that these two files could only
potentially delete the appended comments, so I submitted them as a PR.
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.
add fix safety section to docs for #15584, I'm new to ruff and not sure
if the content of this PR is correct, but I hope it can be helpful.
---------
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?
-->
## 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
We weren't really using `chrono` for anything other than getting the
current time and formatting it for logs.
Unfortunately, this doesn't quite get us to a point where `chrono`
can be removed. From what I can tell, we're still bringing it via
[`tracing-subscriber`](https://docs.rs/tracing-subscriber/latest/tracing_subscriber/)
and
[`quick-junit`](https://docs.rs/quick-junit/latest/quick_junit/).
`tracing-subscriber` does have an
[issue open about Jiff](https://github.com/tokio-rs/tracing/discussions/3128),
but there's no movement on it.
Normally I'd suggest holding off on this since it doesn't get us all of
the way there and it would be better to avoid bringing in two datetime
libraries, but we are, it appears, already there. In particular,
`env_logger` brings in Jiff. So this PR doesn't really make anything
worse, but it does bring us closer to an all-Jiff world.
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>
Summary
--
This PR replaces uses of version-dependent imports from `typing` or
`typing_extensions` with a centralized `Checker::import_from_typing`
method.
The idea here is to make the fix for #9761 (whatever it ends up being)
applicable to all of the rules performing similar checks.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests for the affected rules.
## Summary
There is a new official URL for the typing documentation:
https://typing.python.org/
Change all https://typing.readthedocs.io/ links to use the new sub
domain, which is slightly shorter and looks more official.
## Test Plan
Tested to see if each and every new URL is accessible. I noticed that
some links go to https://typing.python.org/en/latest/source/stubs.html
which seems to be outdated, but that is a separate issue. The same page
shows up for the old URL.
## Summary
Based on the discussion in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17298#discussion_r2033975460, we
decided to move the scope handling out of the `SemanticSyntaxChecker`
and into the `SemanticSyntaxContext` trait. This PR implements that
refactor by:
- Reverting all of the `Checkpoint` and `in_async_context` code in the
`SemanticSyntaxChecker`
- Adding four new methods to the `SemanticSyntaxContext` trait
- `in_async_context`: matches `SemanticModel::in_async_context` and only
detects the nearest enclosing function
- `in_sync_comprehension`: uses the new `is_async` tracking on
`Generator` scopes to detect any enclosing sync comprehension
- `in_module_scope`: reports whether we're at the top-level scope
- `in_notebook`: reports whether we're in a Jupyter notebook
- In-lining the `TestContext` directly into the
`SemanticSyntaxCheckerVisitor`
- This allows modifying the context as the visitor traverses the AST,
which wasn't possible before
One potential question here is "why not add a single method returning a
`Scope` or `Scopes` to the context?" The main reason is that the `Scope`
type is defined in the `ruff_python_semantic` crate, which is not
currently a dependency of the parser. It also doesn't appear to be used
in red-knot. So it seemed best to use these more granular methods
instead of trying to access `Scope` in `ruff_python_parser` (and
red-knot).
## Test Plan
Existing parser and linter 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? -->
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? -->
* Simplify match conditions in AIR301
* Fix
* `airflow.datasets.manager.DatasetManager` →
`airflow.assets.manager.AssetManager`
* `airflow.www.auth.has_access_dataset` →
`airflow.www.auth.has_access_dataset`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixture has 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
<!-- 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
Summary
--
This PR fixes the issue pointed out by @JelleZijlstra in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17101#issuecomment-2777480204.
Namely, I conflated two very different errors from CPython:
```pycon
>>> def m[T](x: (yield from 1)): ...
File "<python-input-310>", line 1
def m[T](x: (yield from 1)): ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: yield expression cannot be used within the definition of a generic
>>> def m(x: (yield from 1)): ...
File "<python-input-311>", line 1
def m(x: (yield from 1)): ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: 'yield from' outside function
>>> def outer():
... def m(x: (yield from 1)): ...
...
>>>
```
I thought the second error was the same as the first, but `yield` (and
`yield from`) is actually valid in this position when inside a function
scope. The same is true for base classes, as pointed out in the original
comment.
We don't currently raise an error for `yield` outside of a function, but
that should be handled separately.
On the upside, this had the benefit of removing the
`InvalidExpressionPosition::BaseClass` variant and the
`allow_named_expr` field from the visitor because they were both no
longer used.
Test Plan
--
Updated inline tests.
Fixes: #17196
## Summary
Skipping these nodes for malformed type expressions would lead to
incorrect semantic state, which can in turn mean we emit false positives
for rules like `unused-variable`(`F841`)
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run`
<!--
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>
Summary
--
This PR detects the use of invalid syntax in annotation scopes,
including
`yield` and `yield from` expressions and named expressions. I combined a
few
different types of CPython errors here, but I think the resulting error
messages
still make sense and are even preferable to what CPython gives. For
example, we
report `yield expression cannot be used in a type annotation` for both
of these:
```pycon
>>> def f[T](x: (yield 1)): ...
File "<python-input-26>", line 1
def f[T](x: (yield 1)): ...
^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: yield expression cannot be used within the definition of a generic
>>> def foo() -> (yield x): ...
File "<python-input-28>", line 1
def foo() -> (yield x): ...
^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: 'yield' outside function
```
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/11118.
Test Plan
--
New inline tests, along with some updates to existing tests.
Summary
--
Detects duplicate attributes in a `match` class pattern:
```python
match x:
case Class(x=1, x=2): ...
```
which are more analogous to the similar check for mapping patterns than
to the
multiple assignments rule.
I also realized that both this and the mapping check would only work on
top-level patterns, despite the possibility that they can be nested
inside other
patterns:
```python
match x:
case [{"x": 1, "x": 2}]: ... # false negative in the old version
```
and moved these checks into the recursive pattern visitor instead.
I also tidied up some of the names like the `multiple_case_assignment`
function
and the `MultipleCaseAssignmentVisitor`, which are now doing more than
checking
for multiple assignments.
Test Plan
--
New inline tests for both classes and mappings.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
I decided to disable the new
[`needless_continue`](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#needless_continue)
rule because I often found the explicit `continue` more readable over an
empty block or having to invert the condition of an other branch.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Summary
--
Detects duplicate literals in `match` mapping keys.
This PR also adds a `source` method to `SemanticSyntaxContext` to
display the duplicated key in the error message by slicing out its
range.
Test Plan
--
New inline tests.
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
--
This PR reimplements
[load-before-global-declaration
(PLE0118)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/load-before-global-declaration/)
as a semantic syntax error.
I added a `global` method to the `SemanticSyntaxContext` trait to make
this very easy, at least in ruff. Does red-knot have something similar?
If this approach will also work in red-knot, I think some of the other
PLE rules are also compile-time errors in CPython, PLE0117 in
particular. 0115 and 0116 also mention `SyntaxError`s in their docs, but
I haven't confirmed them in the REPL yet.
Test Plan
--
Existing linter tests for PLE0118. I think this actually can't be tested
very easily in an inline test because the `TestContext` doesn't have a
real way to track globals.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Summary
--
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16520 by flagging single,
starred expressions in `return`, `yield`, and
`for` statements.
I thought `yield from` would also be included here, but that error is
emitted by
the CPython parser:
```pycon
>>> ast.parse("def f(): yield from *x")
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<python-input-214>", line 1, in <module>
ast.parse("def f(): yield from *x")
~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/usr/lib/python3.13/ast.py", line 54, in parse
return compile(source, filename, mode, flags,
_feature_version=feature_version, optimize=optimize)
File "<unknown>", line 1
def f(): yield from *x
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
```
And we also already catch it in our parser.
Test Plan
--
New inline tests and updates to existing tests.
## 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`
## Summary
I don't remember exactly when we made `Identifier` a node but it is now
considered a node (it implements `AnyNodeRef`, it has a range). However,
we never updated
the `SourceOrderVisitor` to visit identifiers because we never had a use
case for it and visiting new nodes can change how the formatter
associates comments (breaking change!).
This PR updates the `SourceOrderVisitor` to visit identifiers and
changes the formatter comment visitor to skip identifiers (updating the
visitor might be desired because it could help simplifying some comment
placement logic but this is out of scope for this PR).
## Test Plan
Tests, updated snapshot tests
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? -->
* Combine AIR302 matches
* Found a few errors. Will be fixed in another PR
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
This PR does not change anything. The existing testing fixture should
work as it used to be
<!--
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
Summary
--
Detects starred assignment targets outside of tuples and lists like `*a
= (1,)`.
This PR only considers assignment statements. I also checked annotated
assigment statements, but these give a separate error that we already
catch, so I think they're okay not to consider:
```pycon
>>> *a: list[int] = []
File "<python-input-72>", line 1
*a: list[int] = []
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
```
Fixes#13759
Test Plan
--
New inline tests, plus a new `SemanticSyntaxError` for an existing
parser test. I also removed a now-invalid case from an otherwise-valid
test fixture.
The new semantic error leads to two errors for the case below:
```python
*foo() = 42
```
but this matches [pyright] too.
[pyright]: https://pyright-play.net/?code=FQMw9mAUCUAEC8sAsAmAUEA
Summary
--
Detect setting or deleting `__debug__`. Assigning to `__debug__` was a
`SyntaxError` on the earliest version I tested (3.8). Deleting
`__debug__` was made a `SyntaxError` in [BPO 45000], which said it was
resolved in Python 3.10. However, `del __debug__` was also a runtime
error (`NameError`) when I tested in Python 3.9.6, so I thought it was
worth including 3.9 in this check.
I don't think it was ever a *good* idea to try `del __debug__`, so I
think there's also an argument for not making this version-dependent at
all. That would only simplify the implementation very slightly, though.
[BPO 45000]: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/89163
Test Plan
--
New inline tests. This also required adding a `PythonVersion` field to
the `TestContext` that could be taken from the inline `ParseOptions` and
making the version field on the options accessible.
Summary
--
This PR detects multiple assignments to the same name in `case` patterns
by recursively visiting each pattern.
Test Plan
--
New inline tests.
Summary
--
Detects irrefutable `match` cases before the final case using a modified
version
of the existing `Pattern::is_irrefutable` method from the AST crate. The
modified method helps to retrieve a more precise diagnostic range to
match what
Python 3.13 shows in the REPL.
Test Plan
--
New inline tests, as well as some updates to existing tests that had
irrefutable
patterns before the last block.
<!--
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? -->
combine similar case condition in AIR302
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
nothing should be changed. existing test case should already cover it
## Summary
Here I fix the last English spelling errors I could find in the repo.
Again, I am trying not to touch variable/function names, or anything
that might be misspelled in the API. The goal is to make this PR safe
and easy to merge.
## Test Plan
I have run all the unit tests. Though, again, all of the changes I make
here are to docs and docstrings. I make no code changes, which I believe
should greatly mitigate the testing concerns.
<!--
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
--
Detects duplicate type parameter names in function definitions, class
definitions, and type alias statements.
I also boxed the `type_params` field on `StmtTypeAlias` to make it
easier to
`match` with functions and classes. (That's the reason for the red-knot
code
owner review requests, sorry!)
Test Plan
--
New `ruff_python_syntax_errors` unit tests.
Fixes#11119.
## Summary
This PR implements the "greeter" approach for checking the AST for
syntax errors emitted by the CPython compiler. It introduces two main
infrastructural changes to support all of the compile-time errors:
1. Adds a new `semantic_errors` module to the parser crate with public
`SemanticSyntaxChecker` and `SemanticSyntaxError` types
2. Embeds a `SemanticSyntaxChecker` in the `ruff_linter::Checker` for
checking these errors in ruff
As a proof of concept, it also implements detection of two syntax
errors:
1. A reimplementation of
[`late-future-import`](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/late-future-import/)
(`F404`)
2. Detection of rebound comprehension iteration variables
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/14395)
## Test plan
Existing F404 tests, new inline tests in the `ruff_python_parser` crate,
and a linter CLI test showing an example of the `Message` output.
I also tested in VS Code, where `preview = false` and turning off syntax
errors both disable the new errors:
And on the playground, where `preview = false` also disables the errors:
Fixes#14395
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
I am one of the core developers of Airflow and working on the
"airflow.sdk"
package, and this updates the recommended replacments to the correct
user-facing imports.[^1]
cc @Lee-W @uranusjr
[^1]:
33f0f1d639/task-sdk/src/airflow/sdk/__init__.py (L68-L93)
<!--
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? -->
## Test Plan
Hope and pray? 😉
I'm sure there are some snapshot files I'm supposed to fix first.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
This change follows up on the bug-fix requested in #16747 --
`ruff_python_ast::OperatorPrecedence` had an enum variant, `BitXorOr`,
which which gave the same precedence to the `|` and `^` operators. This
goes against [Python's documentation for operator
precedence](https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#operator-precedence),
so this PR changes the code so that it's correct.
This is part of the overall effort to unify redundant definitions of
`OperatorPrecedence` throughout the codebase (#16071)
## Test Plan
Because this is an internal change, I only ran existing tests to ensure
nothing was broken.
The single flag `has_syntax_error` on `LinterResult` is replaced with
two (private) flags: `has_valid_syntax` and
`has_no_unsupported_syntax_errors`, which record whether there are
`ParseError`s or `UnsupportedSyntaxError`s, respectively. Only the
former is used to prevent a `FixAll` action.
An attempt has been made to make consistent the usage of the phrases
"valid syntax" (which seems to be used to refer only to _parser_ errors)
and "syntax error" (which refers to both _parser_ errors and
version-specific syntax errors).
Closes#16841
Summary
--
This PR updates `check_path` in the `ruff_linter` crate to return a
`Vec<Message>` instead of a `Vec<Diagnostic>`. The main motivation for
this is to make it easier to convert semantic syntax errors directly
into `Message`s rather than `Diagnostic`s in #16106. However, this also
has the benefit of keeping the preview check on unsupported syntax
errors in `check_path`, as suggested in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16429#discussion_r1974748024.
All of the interesting changes are in the first commit. The second
commit just renames variables like `diagnostics` to `messages`, and the
third commit is a tiny import fix.
I also updated the `ExpandedMessage::location` field name, which caused
a few extra commits tidying up the playground code. I thought it was
nicely symmetric with `end_location`, but I'm happy to revert that too.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests. I also tested the playground and server manually.
## 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
Follow-up release for Ruff v0.10 that now includes the following two
changes that we intended to ship but slipped:
* Changes to how the Python version is inferred when a `target-version`
is not specified (#16319)
* `blanket-noqa` (`PGH004`): Also detect blanked file-level noqa
comments (and not just line level comments).
## Test plan
I verified that the binary built on this branch respects the
`requires-python` setting
([logs](https://www.diffchecker.com/qyJWYi6W/), left: v0.10, right:
v0.11)
## Summary
This PR stabilizes the behavior introduced in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15985
The new behavior improves the inference of `str.strip` calls:
* before: The rule only considered calls on string or byte literals
(`"abcd".strip`)
* now: The rule also catches calls to `strip` on object where the type
is known to be a `str` or `bytes` (e.g. `a = "abc"; a.strip("//")`)
The new behavior shipped as part of Ruff 0.9.6 on the 10th of Feb which
is a little more than a month ago.
There have been now new issues or PRs related to the new behavior.
## Summary
This PR promotes the fix improvements for `PLR1714` that were introduced
in https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/14372/ to stable.
The improvement is that the fix now proposes to use a set if all
elements are hashable:
```
foo == "bar" or foo == "baz" or foo == "qux"
```
Gets fixed to
```py
foo in {"bar", "baz", "qux"}
```
where it previously always got fixed to a tuple.
The new fix was first released in ruff 0.8.0 (Nov last year). This is
not a breaking change. The change was preview gated only to get some
extra test coverage.
There are no open issues or PRs related to this changed fix behavior.
## Summary
This PR stabilizes the behavior changes introduced by
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/13305 that were gated behind
preview.
The change is that `__new__` methods are now no longer flagged by
`invalid-first-argument-name-for-class-method` (`N804`) but instead by
`bad-staticmethod-argument` (`PLW0211`)
> __new__ methods are technically static methods, with cls as their
first argument. However, Ruff currently classifies them as classmethod,
which causes two issues:
## Test Plan
There have been no new issues or PRs related to `N804` or `PLW0211`
since the behavior change was released in Ruff 0.9.7 (about 3 weeks
ago).
This is a somewhat recent change but I don't think it's necessary to
leave this in preview for another 2 months. The main reason why it was
in preview
is that it is breaking, not because it is a risky change.
## Summary
This PR stabilizes the fix for `PYI018` introduced in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15999/ (first released with Ruff
0.9.5 early February)
There are no known issues with the fix or open PRs.
## Summary
Deprecate `S320` because defusedxml has deprecated there `lxml` module
and `lxml` has been hardened since.
flake8-bandit has removed their implementation as well
(https://github.com/PyCQA/bandit/pull/1212).
Addresses https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/13707
## Test Plan
I verified that selecting `S320` prints a warning and fails if the
preview mode is enabled.
## Summary
This PR stabilizes the fixes improvements made in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15562 (released with ruff 0.9.3
in mid January).
There's no open issue or PR related to the changed fix behavior.
This is not a breaking change. The fix was only gated behind preview to
get some more test coverage before releasing.
## Summary
This PR stabilizes the behavior change introduced in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15872/
The diagnostic range is now the range of the redundant `mode` argument
where it previously was the range of the entire `open` call:
Before:
```
UP015.py:2:1: UP015 [*] Unnecessary mode argument
|
1 | open("foo", "U")
2 | open("foo", "Ur")
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ UP015
3 | open("foo", "Ub")
4 | open("foo", "rUb")
|
= help: Remove mode argument
```
Now:
```
UP015.py:2:13: UP015 [*] Unnecessary mode argument
|
1 | open("foo", "U")
2 | open("foo", "Ur")
| ^^^^ UP015
3 | open("foo", "Ub")
4 | open("foo", "rUb")
|
= help: Remove mode argument
```
This is a breaking change because it may require moving a `noqa` comment
onto a different line, e.g if you have
```py
open(
"foo",
"Ur",
) # noqa: UP015
```
Needs to be rewritten to
```py
open(
"foo",
"Ur", # noqa: UP015
)
```
There have been now new issues or PRs since the new preview behavior was
implemented. It first was released as part of Ruff 0.9.5 on the 5th of
Feb (a little more than a month ago)
## Test Plan
I reviewed the snapshot tests
## 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
This PR stabilizes the preview behavior for `invalid-argument-name`
(`N803`)
to ignore argument names of functions decorated with `typing.override`
because
these methods are *out of the authors* control.
This behavior was introduced in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15954
and released as part of Ruff 0.9.5 (6th of February).
There have been no new issues or PRs since this behavior change
(preview) was introduced.
## Summary
This PR stabilizes the preview behavior introduced in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15905
The behavior change is that the rule now also recognizes `type(expr) is
type(None)` comparisons where `expr` isn't a name expression.
For example, the rule now detects `type(a.b) is type(None)` and suggests
rewriting the comparison to `a.b is None`.
The new behavior was introduced with Ruff 0.9.5 (6th of February), about
a month ago. There are no open issues or PRs related to this rule (or
behavior change).
## Summary
This PR stabilizes the new behavior introduced in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/14512 to also detect defalut
value arguemnts to `os.environ.get` that have an invalid type (not
`str`).
There's an upstream issue for this behavior change
https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/issues/10092 that was accepted and
a PR, but it hasn't been merged yet.
This behavior change was first shipped with Ruff 0.8.1 (Nov 22).
There has only be one PR since the new behavior was introduced but it
was unrelated to the scope increase
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/14841).
## Summary
This PR stabilizes the behavior change introduced in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15542 to allow
for statements with an empty body in `pytest.raises` and `pytest.warns`
with statements.
This raised an error before but is now allowed:
```py
with pytest.raises(KeyError, match='unknown'):
async for _ in gpt.generate(gpt_request):
pass
```
The same applies to
```py
with pytest.raises(KeyError, match='unknown'):
async for _ in gpt.generate(gpt_request):
...
```
There have been now new issues or PRs related to PT012 or PT031 since
this behavior change was introduced in ruff 0.9.3 (January 23rd).
Brent Westbrook
GiGaGon
Avasam
Илья Любавский
Robsdedude
Dan Parizher
हिमांशु
Jordy Williams
Yair Peretz
Victor Hugo Gomes
Dylan
Nikolas Hearp
chiri
Igor Drokin
Vasco Schiavo
Charlie Marsh
Hmvp
Gideon
Yunchi Pang
Gene Parmesan Thomas
Deric Crago
Andrej
Frazer McLean
sobolevn
Denys Kyslytsyn
Juriah
𝕂
Ibraheem Ahmed
Victorien
Robsdedude
Wei Lee
Marcus Näslund
vjurczenia
Hans
Viktor Merkurev
Max Mynter
Vasanth
Dragon
Micha Reiser
Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos
omahs
jie211
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
camper42
Navdeep K
David Salvisberg
w0nder1ng
Andrew Gallant
David Peter
trag1c
Mohammad Amin Ghasemi
Aarni Koskela
renovate[bot]
John Stilley
Daniel Wilton
Ash Berlin-Taylor
Junhson Jean-Baptiste
Kaxil Naik
Mauro Fontana