## Summary
Accept 0.0 and 1.0 as common magic values. This is in line with the
pylint behaviour, and I think makes sense conceptually.
## Test Plan
Test cases were added to
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/magic_value_comparison.py`
These are for descriptors which affects the behavior of the object _as a
property_; I do not think they should be called directly but there is no
alternative when working with the object directly.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9789
## Summary
Just like #6537 and #6538 but for the `default` second parameter to
`getenv()`.
Also rename "BAD" to "BAR" in the tests, since those strings shouldn't
trigger the rule.
## Test Plan
Added passing and failing examples to `invalid_envvar_default.py`.
## Summary
Tweaks PLR2004 to show the literal source text, rather than the constant
value.
I noticed this when I had a hexadecimal constant, and the linter turned
it into base-10.
Now, if you have `0x300`, it will show `0x300` instead of `768`.
Also, added backticks around the constant in the output message.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR detects whether PLR0917 is being applied to a method or class
method, and if so, it ignores the first argument for the purposes of
counting the number of positional arguments.
## Test Plan
New tests have been added to the corresponding fixture.
Closes#9552.
## Summary
#5920 with a fix for the erroneous slice in `module_name`. Fixes#9547.
## Test Plan
Added `import bbb.ccc._ddd as eee` to the test fixture to ensure it no
longer panics.
`cargo test`
## Summary
Closes#9508 .
Add `__prepare__` method to dunder method list in
`is_known_dunder_method`.
## Test Plan
1. add "__prepare__" method to `Apple` class in
crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/bad_dunder_method_name.py.
2. run `cargo test`
## Summary
Part of #970.
This adds Pylint's [R0244
empty_comment](https://pylint.pycqa.org/en/latest/user_guide/messages/refactor/empty-comment.html)
lint as well as an always-safe fix.
## Test Plan
The included snapshot verifies the following:
- A line containing only a non-empty comment is not changed
- A line containing leading whitespace before a non-empty comment is not
changed
- A line containing only an empty comment has its content deleted
- A line containing only leading whitespace before an empty comment has
its content deleted
- A line containing only leading and trailing whitespace on an empty
comment has its content deleted
- A line containing trailing whitespace after a non-empty comment is not
changed
- A line containing only a single newline character (i.e. a blank line)
is not changed
- A line containing code followed by a non-empty comment is not changed
- A line containing code followed by an empty comment has its content
deleted after the last non-whitespace character
- Lines containing code and no comments are not changed
- Empty comment lines within block comments are ignored
- Empty comments within triple-quoted sections are ignored
## Comparison to Pylint
Running Ruff and Pylint 3.0.3 with Python 3.12.0 against the
`empty_comment.py` file added in this PR, we see the following:
* Identical behavior:
* empty_comment.py:3:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* empty_comment.py:4:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* empty_comment.py:5:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* empty_comment.py:18:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* Differing behavior:
* Pylint doesn't ignore empty comments in block comments commonly used
for visual spacing; I decided these were fine in this implementation
since many projects use these and likely do not want them removed.
* empty_comment.py:28:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* Pylint detects "empty comments" within the triple-quoted section at
the bottom of the file, which is arguably a bug in the Pylint
implementation since these are not truly comments. These are ignored by
this implementation.
* empty_comment.py:37:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* empty_comment.py:38:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* empty_comment.py:39:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
## Summary
- Adds `add_argument` similar to existing `remove_argument` utility to
safely add arguments to functions.
- Adds autofix for `PLW1514` as per specs requested in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8883 as a test
## Test Plan
Checks on existing fixtures as well as additional test and fixture for
Python 3.9 and lower fix
## Issue Link
Closes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8883
closes#8732
I noticed that the reference to the setting in the rule docs doesn't
work, but there seem to be something wrong with pylint settings in
general in the docs - the "For related settings, see ...." is also
missing there.
<!--
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
Adds the Pylint rule E1132 to check for repeated keyword arguments in a
function call.
## Test Plan
Tested via the included unit tests and manual spot checking.
## Summary
Implements pylint C0415 (import-outside-toplevel) — imports should be at
the top level of a file.
The great debate I had on this implementation is whether "top-level" is
one word or two (`toplevel` or `top_level`). I opted for 2 because that
seemed to be how it is used in the codebase but the rule string itself
uses one-word "toplevel." 🤷 I'd be happy to change it as desired.
I suppose this could be auto-fixed by moving the import to the
top-level, but it seems likely that the author's intent was to actually
import this dynamically, so I view the main point of this rule is to
force some sort of explanation, and auto-fixing might be annoying.
For reference, this is what "pylint" reports:
```
> pylint crates/ruff/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/import_outside_top_level.py
************* Module import_outside_top_level
...
crates/ruff/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/import_outside_top_level.py:4:4: C0415: Import outside toplevel (string) (import-outside-toplevel)
```
ruff would now report:
```
import_outside_top_level.py:4:5: PLC0415 `import` should be used only at the top level of a file
|
3 | def import_outside_top_level():
4 | import string # [import-outside-toplevel]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PLC0415
|
```
Contributes to https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970.
## Test Plan
Snapshot test.
## Summary
Python 3.12 added the `__buffer__()`/`__release_buffer_()` special
methods, which are incorrectly flagged as invalid dunder methods by
`PLW3201`.
## Test Plan
Added definitions to the test suite, and confirmed they failed without
the fix and are ignored after the fix was done.
This is my first PR and I'm new at rust, so feel free to ask me to
rewrite everything if needed ;)
The rule must be called after deferred lambas have been visited because
of the last check (whether the lambda parameters are used in the body of
the function that's being called). I didn't know where to do it, so I
did what I could to be able to work on the rule itself:
- added a `ruff_linter::checkers::ast::analyze::lambda` module
- build a vec of visited lambdas in `visit_deferred_lambdas`
- call `analyze::lambda` on the vec after they all have been visited
Building that vec of visited lambdas was necessary so that bindings
could be properly resolved in the case of nested lambdas.
Note that there is an open issue in pylint for some false positives, do
we need to fix that before merging the rule?
https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/issues/8192
Also, I did not provide any fixes (yet), maybe we want do avoid merging
new rules without fixes?
## Summary
Checks for lambdas whose body is a function call on the same arguments
as the lambda itself.
### Bad
```python
df.apply(lambda x: str(x))
```
### Good
```python
df.apply(str)
```
## Test Plan
Added unit test and snapshot.
Manually compared pylint and ruff output on pylint's test cases.
## References
- [pylint
documentation](https://pylint.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_guide/messages/warning/unnecessary-lambda.html)
- [pylint
implementation](https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/blob/main/pylint/checkers/base/basic_checker.py#L521-L587)
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970