## 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? -->
GiGaGon
Robsdedude
Brent Westbrook
Jordy Williams
Yair Peretz
Victor Hugo Gomes
Dylan
Nikolas Hearp
chiri
Igor Drokin
Илья Любавский
Vasco Schiavo
Dan Parizher
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
हिमांशु
Vasanth
Dragon
Micha Reiser
Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos