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? -->
Re: #17526
## Summary
Add integration test for semantic syntax for `IrrefutableCasePattern`,
`SingleStarredAssignment`, `WriteToDebug`, and `InvalidExpression`.
## Notes
- Following @ntBre's suggestion, I will keep the test coming in batches
like this over the next few days in separate PRs to keep the review load
per PR manageable while also not spamming too many.
- I did not add a test for `del __debug__` which is one of the examples
in `crates/ruff_python_parser/src/semantic_errors.rs:1051`.
For python version `<= 3.8` there is no error and for `>=3.9` the error
is not `WriteToDebug` but `SyntaxError: cannot delete __debug__ on
Python 3.9 (syntax was removed in 3.9)`.
- The `blacken-docs` bypass is necessary because otherwise the test does
not pass pre-commit checks; but we want to check for this faulty syntax.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
This is a test.
<!--
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? -->
* `airflow.models.Connection` → `airflow.sdk.Connection`
* `airflow.models.Variable` → `airflow.sdk.Variable`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixtures has been updated (see the first commit for easier
review)
## Summary
This PR is a first step toward integration of the new `Diagnostic` type
into ruff. There are two main changes:
- A new `UnifiedFile` enum wrapping `File` for red-knot and a
`SourceFile` for ruff
- ruff's `Message::SyntaxError` variant is now a `Diagnostic` instead of
a `SyntaxErrorMessage`
The second of these changes was mostly just a proof of concept for the
first, and it went pretty smoothly. Converting `DiagnosticMessage`s will
be most of the work in replacing `Message` entirely.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, which show no changes.
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
This PR partially addresses #16418 via the following:
- `LinterSettings::unresolved_python_version` is now a `TargetVersion`,
which is a thin wrapper around an `Option<PythonVersion>`
- `Checker::target_version` now calls `TargetVersion::linter_version`
internally, which in turn uses `unwrap_or_default` to preserve the
current default behavior
- Calls to the parser now call `TargetVersion::parser_version`, which
calls `unwrap_or_else(PythonVersion::latest)`
- The `Checker`'s implementation of
`SemanticSyntaxContext::python_version` also uses
`TargetVersion::parser_version` to use `PythonVersion::latest` for
semantic errors
In short, all lint rule behavior should be unchanged, but we default to
the latest Python version for the new syntax errors, which should
minimize confusing version-related syntax errors for users without a
version configured.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, which showed no changes (except for printing default
settings).
## Summary
Introducing a new rule based on discussions in #15732 and #15729 that
checks for unnecessary in with empty collections.
I called it in_empty_collection and gave the rule number RUF060.
Rule is in preview group.
The PR add the fix safety section for rule `RUF013`
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/15584 )
The fix was introduced here #4831
The rule as a lot of False Negative (as it is explained in the docs of
the rule).
The main reason because the fix is unsafe is that it could change code
generation tools behaviour, as in the example here:
```python
def generate_api_docs(func):
hints = get_type_hints(func)
for param, hint in hints.items():
if is_optional_type(hint):
print(f"Parameter '{param}' is optional")
else:
print(f"Parameter '{param}' is required")
# Before fix
def create_user(name: str, roles: list[str] = None):
pass
# After fix
def create_user(name: str, roles: Optional[list[str]] = None):
pass
# Generated docs would change from "roles is required" to "roles is optional"
```
<!--
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?
-->
Re: #17526
## Summary
Add test fixtures for `AwaitOutsideAsync` and
`AsyncComprehensionOutsideAsyncFunction` errors.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
This is a test.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Re: #17526
## Summary
Add integration tests for Python Semantic Syntax for
`InvalidStarExpression`, `DuplicateMatchKey`, and
`DuplicateMatchClassAttribute`.
## Note
- Red knot integration tests for `DuplicateMatchKey` exist already in
line 89-101.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
This is a test.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
When attempting to determine whether `import foo.bar.baz` is a known
first-party import relative to [user-provided source
paths](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/settings/#src), when `preview` is
enabled we now check that `SRC/foo/bar/baz` is a directory or
`SRC/foo/bar/baz.py` or `SRC/foo/bar/baz.pyi` exist.
Previously, we just checked the analogous thing for `SRC/foo`, but this
can be misleading in situations with disjoint namespace packages that
share a common base name (e.g. we may be working inside the namespace
package `foo.buzz` and importing `foo.bar` from elsewhere).
Supersedes #12987Closes#12984
<!--
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#17798
<!-- 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? -->
Skip attribute check in try catch block (`AIR301`)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/airflow/AIR301_names_try.py`
<!--
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 `airflow.utils.dag_parsing_context.get_parsing_context` from
AIR301 as it has been moved to AIR311
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
the test fixture was updated in the previous PR
This PR updates the semantic model for Python 3.14 by essentially
equating "run using Python 3.14" with "uses `from __future__ import
annotations`".
While this is not technically correct under the hood, it appears to be
correct for the purposes of our semantic model. That is: from the point
of view of deciding when to parse, bind, etc. annotations, these two
contexts behave the same. More generally these contexts behave the same
unless you are performing some kind of introspection like the following:
Without future import:
```pycon
>>> from annotationlib import get_annotations,Format
>>> def foo()->Bar:...
...
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.FORWARDREF)
{'return': ForwardRef('Bar')}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.STRING)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.VALUE)
Traceback (most recent call last):
[...]
NameError: name 'Bar' is not defined
>>> get_annotations(foo)
Traceback (most recent call last):
[...]
NameError: name 'Bar' is not defined
```
With future import:
```
>>> from __future__ import annotations
>>> from annotationlib import get_annotations,Format
>>> def foo()->Bar:...
...
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.FORWARDREF)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.STRING)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.VALUE)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo)
{'return': 'Bar'}
```
(Note: the result of the last call to `get_annotations` in these
examples relies on the fact that, as of this writing, the default value
for `format` is `Format.VALUE`).
If one day we support lint rules targeting code that introspects using
the new `annotationlib`, then it is possible we will need to revisit our
approximation.
Closes#15100
## Summary
Contains the same changes to the semantic type inference as
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17705.
Fixes#17694
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Snapshot tests.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
This is not yet fixing anything as the names are not changed, but it
lays down the foundation for fixing.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
the existing test fixture should already cover this change
Victor Hugo Gomes
chiri
Brent Westbrook
Dylan
Charlie Marsh
Victorien
Robsdedude
Denys Kyslytsyn
Wei Lee
Marcus Näslund
vjurczenia
Hans
Viktor Merkurev
Max Mynter
हिमांशु
Vasanth
Vasco Schiavo
Dragon
Micha Reiser
Dan Parizher
Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos
Yunchi Pang
omahs