Along with the logical line detection, this adds 14 of the missing `pycodestyle` rules.
For now, this is all gated behind a `logical_lines` feature that's off-by-default, which will let us implement all rules prior to shipping, since we want to couple the release of these rules with new defaults and instructions.
- optional `prefix` argument for `add_plugin.py`
- rules directory instead of `rules.rs`
- pathlib syntax
- fix test case where code was added instead of name
Example:
```
python scripts/add_plugin.py --url https://pypi.org/project/example/1.0.0/ example --prefix EXA
python scripts/add_rule.py --name SecondRule --code EXA002 --linter example
python scripts/add_rule.py --name FirstRule --code EXA001 --linter example
python scripts/add_rule.py --name ThirdRule --code EXA003 --linter example
```
Note that it breaks compatibility with 'old style' plugins (generation works fine, but namespaces need to be changed):
```
python scripts/add_rule.py --name DoTheThing --code PLC999 --linter pylint
```
"origin" was accurate since ruff rules are currently always modeled
after one origin (except the Ruff-specific rules).
Since we however want to introduce a many-to-many mapping between codes
and rules, the term "origin" no longer makes much sense. Rules usually
don't have multiple origins but one linter implements a rule first and
then others implement it later (often inspired from another linter).
But we don't actually care much about where a rule originates from when
mapping multiple rule codes to one rule implementation, so renaming
RuleOrigin to Linter is less confusing with the many-to-many system.
As per Cargo.toml our minimal supported Rust version is 1.65.0, so we
should be using that version in our CI for cargo test and cargo build.
This was apparently accidentally changed in
79ca66ace5.
I initially attempted to run `wasm-pack build -p ruff` which gave the
error message:
Error: crate directory is missing a `Cargo.toml` file; is `-p` the wrong
directory?
I interpreted that as wasm-pack looking for the "ruff" directory because
I specified -p ruff, however actually the wasm-pack build usage is:
wasm-pack build [FLAGS] [OPTIONS] <path> <cargo-build-options>
And I was missing the `<path>` argument. So this actually wasn't at all
a bug in wasm-pack but just a confusing error message. And the symlink
hack I introduced in the previous commit didn't actually work ... I only
accidentally omitted the `-p` when testing (which ended up as `ruff`
being the <path> argument) ... CLIs are fun.
This lets you test the ruff linters or use the ruff library
without having to compile the ~100 additional dependencies
that are needed by the CLI.
Because we set the following in the [workspace] section of Cargo.toml:
default-members = [".", "ruff_cli"]
`cargo run` still runs the CLI and `cargo test` still tests
the code in src/ as well as the code in the new ruff_cli crate.
(But you can now also run `cargo test -p ruff` to only test the linters.)
messense
Martin Fischer
Charlie Marsh
trag1c
Micha Reiser
Aarni Koskela
Jonathan Plasse
Simon Brugman
Anders Kaseorg
Hugo van Kemenade
Simon Brugman
Paul Barrett
Mohamed Daahir
Colin Delahunty
Harutaka Kawamura