## Summary
This PR moves the `Q003` rule to AST checker.
This is the final rule that used the docstring detection state machine
and thus this PR removes it as well.
resolves: #7595resolves: #7808
## Test Plan
- [x] `cargo test`
- [x] Make sure there are no changes in the ecosystem
## Summary
Adds more aggressive logic to PLR1730, `if-stmt-min-max`
Closes#10907
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Hi! 👋
Thanks for sharing ruff as software libre — it helps me keep Python code
quality up with pre-commit, both locally and CI 🙏
While studying the examples at
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/function-uses-loop-variable/#example I
noticed that the last of the examples had a bug: prior to this fix, `ì`
was passed to the lambda for `x` rather than for `i` — the two are
mixed-up. The reason it's easy to overlook is because addition is an
commutative operation and so `x + i` and `i + x` give the same result
(and least with integers), despite the mix-up. For proof, let me demo
the relevant part with before and after:
```python
In [1]: from functools import partial
In [2]: [partial(lambda x, i: (x, i), i)(123) for i in range(3)]
Out[2]: [(0, 123), (1, 123), (2, 123)]
In [3]: [partial(lambda x, i: (x, i), i=i)(123) for i in range(3)]
Out[3]: [(123, 0), (123, 1), (123, 2)]
```
Does that make sense?
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Was manually tested using IPython.
CC @r4f @grandchild
## Summary
If `RUF100` was included in a per-file-ignore, we respected it on cases
like `# noqa: F401`, but not the blanket variant (`# noqa`).
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10906.
## Summary
Implement new rule: Prefer augmented assignment (#8877). It checks for
the assignment statement with the form of `<expr> = <expr>
<binary-operator> …` with a unsafe fix to use augmented assignment
instead.
## Test Plan
1. Snapshot test is included in the PR.
2. Manually test with playground.
Refs #3172
## Summary
Fix a typo in the docs example, and add a test for the case where a
negative pattern and a positive pattern overlap.
The behavior here is simple: patterns (positive or negative) are always
additive if they hit (i.e. match for a positive pattern, don't match for
a negated pattern). We never "un-ignore" previously-ignored rules based
on a pattern (positive or negative) failing to hit.
It's simple enough that I don't really see other cases we need to add
tests for (the tests we have cover all branches in the ignores_from_path
function that implements the core logic), but open to reviewer feedback.
I also didn't end up changing the docs to explain this more, because I
think they are accurate as written and don't wrongly imply any more
complex behavior. Open to reviewer feedback on this as well!
After some discussion, I think allowing negative patterns to un-ignore
rules is too confusing and easy to get wrong; if we need that, we should
add `per-file-selects` instead.
## Test Plan
Test/docs only change; tests pass, docs render and look right.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR adds the implementation for the current
[flake8-bugbear](https://github.com/PyCQA/flake8-bugbear)'s B038 rule.
The B038 rule checks for mutation of loop iterators in the body of a for
loop and alerts when found.
Rational:
Editing the loop iterator can lead to undesired behavior and is probably
a bug in most cases.
Closes#9511.
Note there will be a second iteration of B038 implemented in
`flake8-bugbear` soon, and this PR currently only implements the weakest
form of the rule.
I'd be happy to also implement the further improvements to B038 here in
ruff 🙂
See https://github.com/PyCQA/flake8-bugbear/issues/454 for more
information on the planned improvements.
## Test Plan
Re-using the same test file that I've used for `flake8-bugbear`, which
is included in this PR (look for the `B038.py` file).
Note: this is my first time using `rust` (beside `rustlings`) - I'd be
very happy about thorough feedback on what I could've done better
🙂 - Bring it on 😀
## Summary
Code cleanup for per-file ignores; use a struct instead of a tuple.
Named the structs for individual ignores and the list of ignores
`CompiledPerFileIgnore` and `CompiledPerFileIgnoreList`. Name choice is
because we already have a `PerFileIgnore` struct for a
pre-compiled-matchers form of the config. Name bikeshedding welcome.
## Test Plan
Refactor, should not change behavior; existing tests pass.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <alex.waygood@gmail.com>
## Summary
I believe this should close
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10880? The `.gitignore`
creation seems ok, since it truncates, but using `cachedir::is_tagged`
followed by `cachedir::add_tag` is not safe, as `cachedir::add_tag`
_fails_ if the file already exists.
This also matches the structure of the code in `uv`.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10880.
## Summary
Implement `write-whole-file` (`FURB103`), part of #1348. This is largely
a copy and paste of `read-whole-file` #7682.
## Test Plan
Text fixture added.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
## Summary
Improve `blanket-noqa` error message in cases where codes are provided
but not detected due to formatting issues. Namely `# noqa X100` (missing
colon) or `noqa : X100` (space before colon). The behavior is similar to
`NQA002` and `NQA003` from `flake8-noqa` mentioned in #850. The idea to
merge the rules into `PGH004` was suggested by @MichaReiser
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/10325#issuecomment-2025535444.
## Test Plan
Test cases added to fixture.
Fixes#3172
## Summary
Allow prefixing [extend-]per-file-ignores patterns with `!` to negate
the pattern; listed rules / prefixes will be ignored in all files that
don't match the pattern.
## Test Plan
Added tests for the feature.
Rendered docs and checked rendered output.
Fixes#5499
## Summary
Add support for `FORCE_COLOR` env var, as specified at
https://force-color.org/
## Test Plan
I wrote an integration test for this, and then realized that can't work,
since we use a dev-dependency on `colored` with the `no-color` feature
to avoid ANSI color codes in test snapshots.
So this is just tested manually.
`cargo run --features test-rules -- check --no-cache --isolated -
--select RUF901 --diff < /dev/null` shows a colored diff.
`cargo run --features test-rules -- check --no-cache --isolated -
--select RUF901 --diff < /dev/null | less` does not have color, since we
pipe it to `less`.
`FORCE_COLOR=1 cargo run --features test-rules -- check --no-cache
--isolated - --select RUF901 --diff < /dev/null | less` does have color
(after this diff), even though we pipe it to `less`.
## Summary
Came across this code while digging into the semantic model with
@AlexWaygood, and found it confusing because of how it splits
`push_scope` from the paired `pop_scope` (took me a few minutes to even
figure out if/where we were popping the pushed scope). Since this
"cleanup" is already totally split by node type, there doesn't seem to
be any gain in having it as a separate "step" rather than just
incorporating it into the traversal clauses for those node types.
I left the equivalent cleanup step alone for the expression case,
because in that case it is actually generic across several different
node types, and due to the use of the common `visit_generators` utility
there isn't a clear way to keep the pushes and corresponding pops
localized.
Feel free to just reject this if I've missed a good reason for it to
stay this way!
## Test Plan
Tests and clippy.
Max Muoto
Micha Reiser
Alex Waygood
Charlie Marsh
renovate[bot]
StevenMia
Steve C
Hoël Bagard
Dhruv Manilawala
Sebastian Pipping
wolfgangshi
Carl Meyer
Martin Imre
Auguste Lalande
Carl Meyer