<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This PR addresses #20570 . In the example, the correct usage had a
bug/issue where in the except block after logging exception, None was
getting returned, which made the linters flag out the code. So adding an
empty raise solves the issue.
## Test Plan
Tested it by building the doc locally.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
This PR implements
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/future-feature-not-defined/ (F407) as
a semantic syntax error.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have written inline tests as directed in #17412
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
Summary
--
This fixes a bug pointed out in #20560 where one of the `pylint`
settings wasn't used in its `Display` implementation.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests with updated snapshots
## Summary
Improve the SIM105 rule message to prevent user confusion about how to
properly use `contextlib.suppress`.
The previous message "Replace with `contextlib.suppress(ValueError)`"
was ambiguous and led users to incorrectly use
`contextlib.suppress(ValueError)` as a statement inside except blocks
instead of replacing the entire try-except-pass block with `with
contextlib.suppress(ValueError):`.
This change makes the message more explicit:
- **Before**: `"Use \`contextlib.suppress({exception})\` instead of
\`try\`-\`except\`-\`pass\`"`
- **After**: `"Replace \`try\`-\`except\`-\`pass\` block with \`with
contextlib.suppress({exception})\`"`
The fix title is also updated to be more specific:
- **Before**: `"Replace with \`contextlib.suppress({exception})\`"`
- **After**: `"Replace \`try\`-\`except\`-\`pass\` with \`with
contextlib.suppress({exception})\`"`
Fixes#20462
## Test Plan
- ✅ All existing SIM105 tests pass with updated snapshots
- ✅ Cargo clippy passes without warnings
- ✅ Full test suite passes
- ✅ The new messages clearly indicate that the entire try-except-pass
block should be replaced with a `with` statement, preventing the misuse
described in the issue
---------
Co-authored-by: Giovani Moutinho <e@mgiovani.dev>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
First contribution so please let me know if I've made a mistake
anywhere. This was aimed to fix#19982, it adds the isolation level to
PYI021 to in the same style as the PIE790 rule.
fixes: #19982
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I added a case to the PYI021.pyi file where the two rules are present as
there wasn't a case with them both interacting, using the minimal
reproducible example that @ntBre created on the issue (I think I got the
`# ERROR` markings wrong, so please let me know how to fix that if I
did).
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This PR implements
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/multiple-starred-expressions/ as a
semantic syntax error
## Test Plan
I have added inline tests as directed in #17412
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
- Adds test cases exercising file selection by extension with
`--preview` enabled and disabled.
- Adds `INCLUDE_PREVIEW` with file patterns including `*.pyw`.
- In global preview mode, default configuration selects patterns from
`INCLUDE_PREVIEW`.
- Manually tested ruff server with local vscode for both formatting and
linting of a `.pyw` file.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/13246
## Summary
Adds a new rule to find and report use of `os.path` or `pathlib.Path` in
async functions.
Issue: #8451
## Test Plan
Using `cargo insta test`
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Fixes#12734
I have started with simply checking if any arguments that are providing
extra values to the log message are calls to `str` or `repr`, as
suggested in the linked issue. There was a concern that this could cause
false positives and the check should be more explicit. I am happy to
look into that if I have some further examples to work with.
If this is the accepted solution then there are more cases to add to the
test and it should possibly also do test for the same behavior via the
`extra` keyword.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I have added a new test case and python file to flake8_logging_format
with examples of this anti-pattern.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Fixes#20440
Fix B004 to skip invalid hasattr/getattr calls
- Add argument validation for `hasattr` and `getattr`
- Skip B004 rule when function calls have invalid argument patterns
## Summary
Implements new rule `B912` that requires the `strict=` argument for
`map(...)` calls with two or more iterables on Python 3.14+, following
the same pattern as `B905` for `zip()`.
Closes#20057
---------
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@gmail.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Resolves#20033
## Test Plan
unit tests added to the new split function, existing snapshot test
updated.
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#19887
- flynt(FLY002): When joining only string constants, upgrade raw
single-quoted strings to raw triple-quoted if the resulting
content contains a newline.
- Choose a safe triple-quote delimiter by switching to the opposite
quote style if the preferred triple appears inside the
content.
- Update FLY002 snapshot to include the `\n'.join([r'line1','line2'])`
case.
## Test Plan
I've added one test case to FLY002.py.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#20255
Mark single-item-membership-test fixes as always unsafe
- Always set `Applicability::Unsafe` for FURB171 fixes
- Update “Fix safety” docs to reflect always-unsafe behavior
- Expand tests (not in, nested set/frozenset, commented args)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have added new test cases to
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/refurb/FURB171_0.py` and
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/refurb/FURB171_1.py`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/20134
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run flake8_use_pathlib`
---------
Co-authored-by: Dan Parizher <danparizher@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
Part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/2331
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run flake8_use_pathlib`
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
This refactors the importer abstraction to use a shared
`Insertion`. This is mostly just moving some code around
with some slight tweaks.
The plan here is to keep the rest of the importing code
in `ruff_linter` and then write something ty-specific on
top of `Insertion`. This ends up sharing some code, but
not as much as would be ideal. In particular, the
`ruff_linter` imported is pretty tightly coupled with
ruff's semantic model. So to share the code, we'd need to
abstract over that.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This PR implements F406
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/undefined-local-with-nested-import-star-usage/
as a semantic syntax error
## Test Plan
I have written inline tests as directed in #17412
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
- Convert panics to diagnostics with id `Panic`, severity `Fatal`, and
the error as the diagnostic message, annotated with a `Span` with empty
code block and no range.
- Updates the post-linting message diagnostic handling to track the
maximum severity seen, and then prints the "report a bug in ruff"
message only if the max severity was `Fatal`
This depends on the sorting changes since it creates diagnostics with no
range specified.
## Summary
Resolves#20266
Definition of the frozen dataclass attribute can be instantiation of a
nested frozen dataclass as well as a non-nested one.
### Problem explanation
The `function_call_in_dataclass_default` function is invoked during the
"defined scope" stage, after all scopes have been processed. At this
point, the semantic references the top-level scope. When
`SemanticModel::lookup_attribute` executes, it searches for bindings in
the top-level module scope rather than the class scope, resulting in an
error.
To solve this issue, the lookup should be evaluated through the class
scope.
## Test Plan
- Added test case from issue
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
## Summary
Fixes#19842
Prevent infinite loop with I002 and UP026
- Implement isort-aware handling for UP026 (deprecated mock import):
- Add CLI integration tests in crates/ruff/tests/lint.rs:
## Test Plan
I have added two integration tests
`pyupgrade_up026_respects_isort_required_import_fix` and
`pyupgrade_up026_respects_isort_required_import_from_fix` in
`crates/ruff/tests/lint.rs`.
## Summary
Resolves#20282
Makes the rule fix always unsafe, because the replacement may not be
semantically equivalent to the original expression, potentially changing
the behavior of the code.
Updated docstring with examples.
## Test Plan
- Added two tests from issue and regenerated the snapshot
---------
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
Fixes#20204
Recognize t-strings, generators, and lambdas in RUF016
- Accept boolean literals as valid index and slice bounds.
- Add TString, Generator, and Lambda to `CheckableExprType`.
- Expand RUF016.py fixture and update snapshots accordingly.
Our token-based rules and `noqa` extraction used an `Indexer` that kept
track of f-string ranges but not t-strings. We've updated the `Indexer`
and downstream uses thereof to handle both f-strings and t-strings.
Most of the diff is renaming and adding tests.
Note that much of the "new" logic gets to be naive because the lexer has
already ensured that f and t-string "starts" are paired with their
respective "ends", even amidst nesting and so on.
Finally: one could imagine wanting to know if a given interpolated
string range corresponds to an f-string or a t-string, but I didn't find
a place where we actually needed this.
Closes#20310
## Summary
This is the GitHub analog to #20117. This PR prepares to add a GitHub
output format to ty by moving the implementation from `ruff_linter` to
`ruff_db`. Hopefully this one is a bit easier to review
commit-by-commit. Almost all of the refactoring this time is in the
first commit, then the second commit adds the new `OutputFormat` variant
and moves the file into `ruff_db`. The third commit is just a small
touch up to use a private method that accommodates ty files so that we
can run the tests and update/move the snapshots.
I had to push a fourth commit to fix and test diagnostics without a
span/file.
## Test Plan
Existing tests
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#20235
• Fix `RUF102` to properly handle rule redirects when validating noqa
codes
• Update `code_is_valid` to check redirect targets before determining
validity
• Add test case for rule redirects (TCH002 in this case)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have added a test case for rule redirects to
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/RUF102.py`.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Closes#18349
After this change:
- All deprecated rules are deselected by default
- They are only selected if the user specifically selects them by code,
e.g. `--select UP038`
- Thus, `--select ALL --select UP --select UP0` won't select the
deprecated rule UP038
- Documented the change in version policy. From now on, deprecating a
rule should increase the minor version
## Test Plan
Integration tests in "integration_tests.rs"
Also tested with a temporary test package:
```
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP038
warning: Rule `UP038` is deprecated and will be removed in a future release.
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
UP038 Use `X | Y` in `isinstance` call instead of `(X, Y)`
--> main.py:2:11
|
1 | def main():
2 | print(isinstance(25, (str, int)))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: Convert to `X | Y`
Found 1 error.
No fixes available (1 hidden fix can be enabled with the `--unsafe-fixes` option).
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP03
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP0
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select ALL
# warnings and errors, but because of other errors, UP038 was deselected
```
- **Stabilize `airflow3-suggested-update` (`AIR311`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-suggested-to-move-to-provider` (`AIR312`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-removal` (`AIR301`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-moved-to-provider` (`AIR302`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow-dag-no-schedule-argument` (`AIR002`)**
I put this all in one PR to make it easier to double check with @Lee-W
before we merge this. I also made a few minor documentation changes and
updated one error message that I want to make sure are okay. But for the
most part this just moves the rules from `RuleGroup::Preview` to
`RuleGroup::Stable`!
Fixes#17749
This stabilizes the behavior introduced in #16565 which (roughly) tries
to match an import like `import a.b.c` to an actual directory path
`a/b/c` in order to label it as first-party, rather than simply looking
for a directory `a`.
Mainly this affects the sorting of imports in the presence of namespace
packages, but a few other rules are affected as well.
This one has been a bit contentious in the past. It usually uncovers
~700 ecosystem hits. See:
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16657
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16690
But I think there's consensus that it's okay to merge as-is. We'd love
an
autofix since it's so common, but we can't reliably tell what a user
meant. The
pattern is ambiguous after all 😆
This is the first rule that actually needed its test case relocated, but
the
docs looked good.
## Summary
This PR Removes deprecated UP038 as per instructed in #18727closes#18727
## Test Plan
I have run tests non of them failing
One Question i have is do we have to document that UP038 is removed?
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
closes#7710
## Test Plan
It is is removal so i don't think we have to add tests otherwise i have
followed test plan mentioned in contributing.md
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Summary
--
Rule and test/snapshot updated, the docs look good
My one hesitation here is that we could hold off stabilizing the rule
until its fix is also ready for stabilization, but this is also the only
preview PTH rule, so I think it's okay to stabilize the rule and later
(probably in the next minor release) stabilize the fixes together.
The tests looked good. For the docs, I added a `## See also` section
pointing to
the closely-related F841 (unused-variable) and the corresponding section
to F841
pointing back to RUF059. It seems like you'd probably want both of these
active
or at least to know about the other when reading the docs.
## Summary
Resolves#19357
Skip UP008 diagnostic for `builtins.super(P, self)` calls when
`__class__` is not referenced locally, preventing incorrect fixes.
**Note:** I haven't found concrete information about which cases
`__class__` will be loaded into the scope. Let me know if anyone has
references, it would be useful to enhance the implementation. I did a
lot of tests to determine when `__class__` is loaded. Considered
sources:
1. [Python doc
super](https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#super)
2. [Python doc classes](https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html)
3. [pep-3135](https://peps.python.org/pep-3135/#specification)
As I understand it, Python will inject at runtime into local scope a
`__class__` variable if it detects references to `super` or `__class__`.
This allows calling `super()` and passing appropriate parameters.
However, the compiler doesn't do the same for `builtins.super`, so we
need to somehow introduce `__class__` into the local scope.
I figured out `__class__` will be in scope with valid value when two
conditions are met:
1. `super` or `__class__` names have been loaded within function scope
4. `__class__` is not overridden.
I think my solution isn't elegant, so I would be appreciate a detailed
review.
## Test Plan
Added 19 test cases, updated snapshots.
---------
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
- Renames functions to drop `expect_` from names.
- Make functions return `Option<LineColumn>` to appropriately signal
when range is not available.
- Update existing consumers to use `unwrap_or_default()`. Uncertain if
there are better fallback behaviors for individual consumers.
Specifically, the [`if_not_else`] lint will sometimes flag
code to change the order of `if` and `else` bodies if this
would allow a `!` to be removed. While perhaps tasteful in
some cases, there are many cases in my experience where this
bows to other competing concerns that impact readability.
(Such as the relative sizes of the `if` and `else` bodies,
or perhaps an ordering that just makes the code flow in a
more natural way.)
[`if_not_else`]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/if_not_else
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Noticed this was not escaped when writing a project that parses the
result of `ruff rule --outputformat json`. This is visible here:
<https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/mixed-case-variable-in-global-scope/#why-is-this-bad>
## Test Plan
documentation only
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
### Why
Removal should be grouped into the same category. It doesn't matter
whether it's from a provider or not (and the only case we used to have
was not anyway).
`ProviderReplacement` is used to indicate that we have a replacement and
we might need to install an extra Python package to cater to it.
### What
Move `airflow.operators.postgres_operator.Mapping` from AIR302 to AIR301
and get rid of `ProviderReplace::None`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Update the test fixtures accordingly in the first commit and reorganize
them in the second commit
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This PR implements
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/yield-from-in-async-function/ as a
syntax semantic error
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have written a simple inline test as directed in
[https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/17412](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/17412)
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <alex.waygood@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
update the argument `datasets` as `assets`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update fixture accordingly
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
### What
Change the message from "DAG should have an explicit `schedule`
argument" to "`DAG` or `@dag` should have an explicit `schedule`
argument"
### Why
We're trying to get rid of the idea that DAG in airflow was Directed
acyclic graph. Thus, change it to refer to the class `DAG` or the
decorator `@dag` might help a bit.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update the test fixtures accordly
## Summary
This PR fixes#7352 by exposing the `show_fix_diff` option used in our
snapshot tests in the CLI. As the issue suggests, we plan to make this
the default output format in the future, so this is added to the `full`
output format in preview for now.
This turned out to be pretty straightforward. I just used our existing
`Applicability` settings to determine whether or not to print the diff.
The snapshot differences are because we now set
`Applicability::DisplayOnly` for our snapshot tests. This
`Applicability` is also used to determine whether or not the fix icon
(`[*]`) is rendered, so this is now shown for display-only fixes in our
snapshots. This was already the case previously, but we were only
setting `Applicability::Unsafe` in these tests and ignoring the
`Applicability` when rendering fix diffs. CLI users can't enable
display-only fixes, so this is only a test change for now, but this
should work smoothly if we decide to expose a `--display-only-fixes`
flag or similar in the future.
I also deleted the `PrinterFlags::SHOW_FIX_DIFF` flag. This was
completely unused before, and it seemed less confusing just to delete it
than to enable it in the right place and check it along with the
`OutputFormat` and `preview`.
## Test Plan
I only added one CLI test for now. I'm kind of assuming that we have
decent coverage of the cases where this shouldn't be firing, especially
the `output_format` CLI test, which shows that this definitely doesn't
affect non-preview `full` output. I'm happy to add more tests with
different combinations of options, if we're worried about any in
particular. I did try `--diff` and `--preview` and a few other
combinations manually.
And here's a screenshot using our trusty UP049 example from the design
discussion confirming that all the colors and other formatting still
look as expected:
<img width="786" height="629" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/94e408bc-af7b-4573-b546-a5ceac2620f2"
/>
And one with an unsafe fix to see the footer:
<img width="782" height="367" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/bbb29e47-310b-4293-b2c2-cc7aee3baff4"
/>
## Related issues and PR
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7352
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/12595
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/12598
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/12599
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/12600
I think we could probably close all of these issues now. I think we've
either resolved or avoided most of them, and if we encounter them again
with the new output format, it would probably make sense to open new
ones anyway.
This pull request fixes the bug described in issue
[#19153](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/19153).
The issue occurred when `PERF403` incorrectly flagged cases involving
tuple unpacking in a for loop. For example:
```python
def f():
v = {}
for (o, p), x in [("op", "x")]:
v[x] = o, p
```
This code was wrongly suggested to be rewritten into a dictionary
comprehension, which changes the semantics.
Changes in this PR:
Updated the `PERF403` rule to correctly handle tuple unpacking in loop
targets.
Added regression tests to ensure this case (and similar ones) are no
longer flagged incorrectly.
Why:
This ensures that `PERF403` only triggers when a dictionary
comprehension is semantically equivalent to the original loop,
preventing false positives.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
Adds new rule to catch use of builtins `input()` in async functions.
Issue #8451
## Test Plan
New snapshosts in `ASYNC250.py` with `cargo insta test`.
## Summary
I spun this off from #19919 to separate the rendering code change and
snapshot updates from the (much smaller) changes to expose this in the
CLI. I grouped all of the `ruff_linter` snapshot changes in the final
commit in an effort to make this easier to review. The code changes are
in [this
range](619395eb41).
I went through all of the snapshots, albeit fairly quickly, and they all
looked correct to me. In the last few commits I was trying to resolve an
existing issue in the alignment of the line number separator:
73720c73be/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/flake8_comprehensions/snapshots/ruff_linter__rules__flake8_comprehensions__tests__C409_C409.py.snap (L87-L89)
In the snapshot above on `main`, you can see that a double-digit line
number at the end of the context lines for a snippet was causing a
misalignment with the other separators. That's now resolved. The one
downside is that this can lead to a mismatch with the diagnostic above:
```
C409 [*] Unnecessary list literal passed to `tuple()` (rewrite as a tuple literal)
--> C409.py:4:6
|
2 | t2 = tuple([1, 2])
3 | t3 = tuple((1, 2))
4 | t4 = tuple([
| ______^
5 | | 1,
6 | | 2
7 | | ])
| |__^
8 | t5 = tuple(
9 | (1, 2)
|
help: Rewrite as a tuple literal
1 | t1 = tuple([])
2 | t2 = tuple([1, 2])
3 | t3 = tuple((1, 2))
- t4 = tuple([
4 + t4 = (
5 | 1,
6 | 2
- ])
7 + )
8 | t5 = tuple(
9 | (1, 2)
10 | )
note: This is an unsafe fix and may remove comments or change runtime behavior
```
But I don't think we can avoid that without really reworking this
rendering to make the diagnostic and diff rendering aware of each other.
Anyway, this should only happen in relatively rare cases where the
diagnostic is near a digit boundary and also near a context boundary.
Most of our diagnostics line up nicely.
Another potential downside of the new rendering format is its handling
of long stretches of `+` or `-` lines:
```
help: Replace with `Literal[...] | None`
21 | ...
22 |
23 |
- def func6(arg1: Literal[
- "hello",
- None # Comment 1
- , "world"
- ]):
24 + def func6(arg1: Literal["hello", "world"] | None):
25 | ...
26 |
27 |
note: This is an unsafe fix and may remove comments or change runtime behavior
```
To me it just seems a little hard to tell what's going on with just a
long streak of `-`-prefixed lines. I saw an even more exaggerated
example at some point, but I think this is also fairly rare. Most of the
snapshots seem more like the examples we looked at on Discord with
plenty of `|` lines and pairs of `+` and `-` lines.
## Test Plan
Existing tests plus one new test in `ruff_db` to isolate a line
separator alignment issue
Takayuki Maeda
Rahul Sahoo
Dylan
Dan Parizher
Bhuminjay Soni
Brent Westbrook
Giovani Moutinho
Ed Cuss
Amethyst Reese
Pieter Cardillo Kwok
renovate[bot]
Gary Yendell
Frazer McLean
Micha Reiser
chiri
Nikolas Hearp
Andrew Gallant
Igor Drokin
Loïc Riegel
हिमांशु
arielle
Alex Waygood
Wei Lee
Hans
Lior Weissman
Kot