## Summary
This PR sets up CI jobs to run ty from the `main` branch on the files
and subdirectories in our `scripts` directory
## Test Plan
Both these commands pass for me locally:
- `uv run --project=./scripts cargo run -p ty check --project=./scripts`
- `uv run --project=./scripts/ty_benchmark cargo run -p ty check
--project=./scripts/ty_benchmark`
Summary
--
Inspired by #20859, this PR adds the version a rule was added, and the
file and line where it was defined, to `ViolationMetadata`. The file and
line just use the standard `file!` and `line!` macros, while the more
interesting version field uses a new `violation_metadata` attribute
parsed by our `ViolationMetadata` derive macro.
I moved the commit modifying all of the rule files to the end, so it
should be a lot easier to review by omitting that one.
As a curiosity and a bit of a sanity check, I also plotted the rule
numbers over time:
<img width="640" height="480" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/75b0b5cc-3521-4d40-a395-8807e6f4925f"
/>
I think this looks pretty reasonable and avoids some of the artifacts
the earlier versions of the script ran into, such as the `rule`
sub-command not being available or `--explain` requiring a file
argument.
<details><summary>Script and summary data</summary>
```shell
gawk --csv '
NR > 1 {
split($2, a, ".")
major = a[1]; minor = a[2]; micro = a[3]
# sum the number of rules added per minor version
versions[minor] += 1
}
END {
tot = 0
for (i = 0; i <= 14; i++) {
tot += versions[i]
print i, tot
}
}
' ruff_rules_metadata.csv > summary.dat
```
```
0 696
1 768
2 778
3 803
4 822
5 848
6 855
7 865
8 893
9 915
10 916
11 924
12 929
13 932
14 933
```
</details>
Test Plan
--
I built and viewed the documentation locally, and it looks pretty good!
<img width="1466" height="676" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5e227df4-7294-4d12-bdaa-31cac4e9ad5c"
/>
The spacing seems a bit awkward following the `h1` at the top, so I'm
wondering if this might look nicer as a footer in Ruff. The links work
well too:
- [v0.0.271](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/releases/tag/v0.0.271)
- [Related
issues](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues?q=sort%3Aupdated-desc%20is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20airflow-variable-name-task-id-mismatch)
- [View
source](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/main/crates%2Fruff_linter%2Fsrc%2Frules%2Fairflow%2Frules%2Ftask_variable_name.rs#L34)
The last one even works on `main` now since it points to the
`derive(ViolationMetadata)` line.
In terms of binary size, this branch is a bit bigger than main with
38,654,520 bytes compared to 38,635,728 (+20 KB). I guess that's not
_too_ much of an increase, but I wanted to check since we're generating
a lot more code with macros.
---------
Co-authored-by: GiGaGon <107241144+MeGaGiGaGon@users.noreply.github.com>
Same as https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/pull/1391:
> Last time I ran this script, due to what I assume was a `npm` version
mismatch, the `package-lock.json` file was updated while running `npm
install` in the `schemastore`. Due to the use of `git commit -a`, it was
accidentally included in the commit for the semi-automated schemastore
PR. The solution here is to only add the actual file that we want to
commit.
## Summary
I considered making a dedicated cargo profile for these, but the
`profiling` profile basically made all the modifications to `release`
that I would have also made.
## Test Plan
CI on this PR
Summary
--
This reduces the page size of GraphQL queries
(https://github.com/zanieb/rooster/pull/85), hopefully helping with some
of the 502s we've been hitting.
Test Plan
--
I ran the release script, and it succeeded after failing several times
on the old rooster version.
Now that https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20263 is merged, we can
update mypy_primer and add the new `egglog-python` project to
`good.txt`. The ecosystem-analyzer run shows that we now add 1,356
diagnostics (where we had over 5,000 previously, due to the unsupported
project layout).
<!--
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 [indentation-with-invalid-multiple-comment
(E114)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/indentation-with-invalid-multiple-comment/#indentation-with-invalid-multiple-comment-e114)'s
example not raise a syntax error by adding a 4 space indented `...`. The
example still gave `E114` without this, but adding the `...` both makes
the change in indentation of the comment clearer, and makes it not give
a `SyntaxError`.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
Alex Waygood
Brent Westbrook
David Peter
Micha Reiser
Dylan
Amethyst Reese
Dan Parizher
Anh-Dung Nguyen
Ibraheem Ahmed
GiGaGon
renovate[bot]