## Summary
Only run the "pull types" test after performing the "actual" mdtest. We
observed that the order matters. There is currently one mdtest which
panics when checked in the CLI or the playground. With this change, it
also panics in the mdtest suite.
reopens https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/837?
## Summary
Implement handling of ellipsis (`...`) defaults in the `FAST002` autofix
to correctly differentiate between required and optional parameters in
FastAPI route definitions.
Previously, the autofix did not properly handle cases where parameters
used `...` as a default value (to indicate required parameters). This
could lead to incorrect transformations when applying the autofix.
This change updates the `FAST002` autofix logic to:
- Correctly recognize `...` as a valid FastAPI required default.
- Preserve the semantics of required parameters while still applying
other autofix improvements.
- Avoid incorrectly substituting or removing ellipsis defaults.
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/20800
## Test Plan
Added a new test fixture at:
```crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/fastapi/FAST002_2.py```
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#20941
Skip autofix for keyword and __debug__ path params
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I added two test cases to
crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/fastapi/FAST003.py.
Closes#20997
This will _decrease_ the number of diagnostics emitted for
[zip-without-explicit-strict
(B905)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/zip-without-explicit-strict/#zip-without-explicit-strict-b905),
since previously it triggered on any `zip` call no matter the number of
arguments. It may _increase_ the number of diagnostics for
[map-without-explicit-strict
(B912)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/map-without-explicit-strict/#map-without-explicit-strict-b912)
since it will now trigger on a single starred argument where before it
would not. However, the latter rule is in `preview` so this is
acceptable.
Note - we do not need to make any changes to
[batched-without-explicit-strict
(B911)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/batched-without-explicit-strict/#batched-without-explicit-strict-b911)
since that just takes a single iterable.
I am doing this in one PR rather than two because we should keep the
behavior of these rules consistent with one another.
For review: apologies for the unreadability of the snapshot for `B905`.
Unfortunately I saw no way of keeping a small diff and a correct fixture
(the fixture labeled a whole block as `# Error` whereas now several in
the block became `# Ok`).Probably simplest to just view the actual
snapshot - it's relatively small.
## Summary
Make rules `INT001`, `INT002`, and `INT003` also
* trigger on qualified names when we're sure the calls are calls to the
`gettext` module. For example
```python
from gettext import gettext as foo
foo(f"{'bar'}") # very certain that this is a call to a real `gettext`
function => worth linting
```
* trigger on `builtins` bindings
```python
from builtins, gettext
gettext.install("...") # binds `gettext.gettext` to `builtins._`
builtins.__dict__["_"] = ... # also a common pattern
_(f"{'bar'}") # should therefore also be linted
```
Fixes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/19028
## Test Plan
Tests have been added to all three rules.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Summary
--
This PR fixes the issue I added in #20867 and noticed in #20930. Cases
like this
cause an error on any Python version:
```py
f"{1:""}"
```
which gave me a false sense of security before. Cases like this are
still
invalid only before 3.12 and weren't flagged after the changes in
#20867:
```py
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
# ^ reused quote
f'{1: abcd "{"\n"}" }'
# ^ backslash
```
I didn't recognize these as nested interpolations that also need to be
checked
for invalid expressions, so filtering out the whole format spec wasn't
quite
right. And `elements.interpolations()` only iterates over the outermost
interpolations, not the nested ones.
There's basically no code change in this PR, I just moved the existing
check
from `parse_interpolated_string`, which parses the entire string, to
`parse_interpolated_element`. This kind of seems more natural anyway and
avoids
having to try to recursively visit nested elements after the fact in
`parse_interpolated_string`. So viewing the diff with something like
```
git diff --color-moved --ignore-space-change --color-moved-ws=allow-indentation-change main
```
should make this more clear.
Test Plan
--
New tests
## Summary
More dogfooding of our own tools.
I didn't touch the build-binaries workflow (it's scary) or the
publish-docs workflow (which doesn't run on PRs) or the ruff-lsp job in
the ci.yaml workflow (ruff-lsp is deprecated; it doesn't seem worth
making changes there).
## Test Plan
CI on this PR
## Summary
- Type checkers (and type-checker authors) think in terms of types, but
I think most Python users think in terms of values. Rather than saying
that a _type_ `X` "has no attribute `foo`" (which I think sounds strange
to many users), say that "an object of type `X` has no attribute `foo`"
- Special-case certain types so that the diagnostic messages read more
like normal English: rather than saying "Type `<class 'Foo'>` has no
attribute `bar`" or "Object of type `<class 'Foo'>` has no attribute
`bar`", just say "Class `Foo` has no attribute `bar`"
## Test Plan
Mdtests and snapshots 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? -->
This PR implements semantic syntax error where alternative patterns bind
different names
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have written inline tests as directed in #17412
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.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
Derived from #20900
Implement `VarianceInferable` for `KnownInstanceType` (especially for
`KnownInstanceType::TypeAliasType`).
The variance of a type alias matches its value type. In normal usage,
type aliases are expanded to value types, so the variance of a type
alias can be obtained without implementing this. However, for example,
if we want to display the variance when hovering over a type alias, we
need to be able to obtain the variance of the type alias itself (cf.
#20900).
## Test Plan
I couldn't come up with a way to test this in mdtest, so I'm testing it
in a test submodule at the end of `types.rs`.
I also added a test to `mdtest/generics/pep695/variance.md`, but it
passes without the changes in this PR.
## Summary
Fixes#20774 by tracking whether an `InterpolatedStringState` element is
nested inside of another interpolated element. This feels like kind of a
naive fix, so I'm welcome to other ideas. But it resolves the problem in
the issue and clears up the syntax error in the black compatibility
test, without affecting many other cases.
The other affected case is actually interesting too because the
[input](96b156303b/crates/ruff_python_formatter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/expression/fstring.py (L707))
is invalid, but the previous quote selection fixed the invalid syntax:
```pycon
Python 3.11.13 (main, Sep 2 2025, 14:20:25) [Clang 20.1.4 ] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }' # input
File "<stdin>", line 1
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
^^
SyntaxError: f-string: expecting '}'
>>> f'{1: abcd "{"aa"}" }' # old output
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ValueError: Invalid format specifier ' abcd "aa" ' for object of type 'int'
>>> f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }' # new output
File "<stdin>", line 1
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
^^
SyntaxError: f-string: expecting '}'
```
We now preserve the invalid syntax in the input.
Unfortunately, this also seems to be another edge case I didn't consider
in https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20867 because we don't flag
this as a syntax error after 0.14.1:
<details><summary>Shell output</summary>
<p>
```
> uvx ruff@0.14.0 check --ignore ALL --target-version py311 - <<EOF
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
EOF
invalid-syntax: Cannot reuse outer quote character in f-strings on Python 3.11 (syntax was added in Python 3.12)
--> -:1:14
|
1 | f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
| ^
|
Found 1 error.
> uvx ruff@0.14.1 check --ignore ALL --target-version py311 - <<EOF
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
EOF
All checks passed!
> uvx python@3.11 -m ast <<EOF
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
EOF
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<frozen runpy>", line 198, in _run_module_as_main
File "<frozen runpy>", line 88, in _run_code
File "/home/brent/.local/share/uv/python/cpython-3.11.13-linux-x86_64-gnu/lib/python3.11/ast.py", line 1752, in <module>
main()
File "/home/brent/.local/share/uv/python/cpython-3.11.13-linux-x86_64-gnu/lib/python3.11/ast.py", line 1748, in main
tree = parse(source, args.infile.name, args.mode, type_comments=args.no_type_comments)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/brent/.local/share/uv/python/cpython-3.11.13-linux-x86_64-gnu/lib/python3.11/ast.py", line 50, in parse
return compile(source, filename, mode, flags,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "<stdin>", line 1
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
^^
SyntaxError: f-string: expecting '}'
```
</p>
</details>
I assumed that was the same `ParseError` as the one caused by
`f"{1:""}"`, but this is a nested interpolation inside of the format
spec.
## Test Plan
New test copied from the black compatibility test. I guess this is a
duplicate now, I started working on this branch before the new black
tests were imported, so I could delete the separate test in our fixtures
if that's preferable.
David Peter
David Peter
Micha Reiser
Hengky Kurniawan
Takayuki Maeda
Dylan
renovate[bot]
Robsdedude
Alex Waygood
ShalokShalom
Shunsuke Shibayama
Brent Westbrook
Loïc Riegel
Renkai Ge
Bhuminjay Soni