<!--
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? -->
During https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15209, additional spaces
was accidentally added to the rule
`airflow.operators.latest_only.LatestOnlyOperator`. This PR fixes this
issue
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
A test fixture has been included for the rule.
## Summary
Airflow 3.0 removes various deprecated functions, members, modules, and
other values. They have been deprecated in 2.x, but the removal causes
incompatibilities that we want to detect. This PR add rules for the
following.
* Removed class attribute
* `airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.dataset_factories` →
`airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.asset_factories`
* `airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.dataset_uri_handlers` →
`airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.asset_uri_handlers`
*
`airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.dataset_to_openlineage_converters`
→
`airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.asset_to_openlineage_converters`
* `airflow.lineage.hook.DatasetLineageInfo.dataset` →
`airflow.lineage.hook.AssetLineageInfo.asset`
* Removed class method (subclasses in airflow should also checked)
* `airflow.secrets.base_secrets.BaseSecretsBackend.get_conn_uri` →
`airflow.secrets.base_secrets.BaseSecretsBackend.get_conn_value`
* `airflow.secrets.base_secrets.BaseSecretsBackend.get_connections` →
`airflow.secrets.base_secrets.BaseSecretsBackend.get_connection`
* `airflow.hooks.base.BaseHook.get_connections` → use `get_connection`
* `airflow.datasets.BaseDataset.iter_datasets` →
`airflow.sdk.definitions.asset.BaseAsset.iter_assets`
* `airflow.datasets.BaseDataset.iter_dataset_aliases` →
`airflow.sdk.definitions.asset.BaseAsset.iter_asset_aliases`
* Removed constructor args (subclasses in airflow should also checked)
* argument `filename_template`
in`airflow.utils.log.file_task_handler.FileTaskHandler`
* in `BaseOperator`
* `sla`
* `task_concurrency` → `max_active_tis_per_dag`
* in `BaseAuthManager`
* `appbuilder`
* Removed class variable (subclasses anywhere should be checked)
* in `airflow.plugins_manager.AirflowPlugin`
* `executors` (from #43289)
* `hooks`
* `operators`
* `sensors`
* Replaced names
* `airflow.hooks.base_hook.BaseHook` → `airflow.hooks.base.BaseHook`
* `airflow.operators.dagrun_operator.TriggerDagRunLink` →
`airflow.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunLink`
* `airflow.operators.dagrun_operator.TriggerDagRunOperator` →
`airflow.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunOperator`
* `airflow.operators.python_operator.BranchPythonOperator` →
`airflow.operators.python.BranchPythonOperator`
* `airflow.operators.python_operator.PythonOperator` →
`airflow.operators.python.PythonOperator`
* `airflow.operators.python_operator.PythonVirtualenvOperator` →
`airflow.operators.python.PythonVirtualenvOperator`
* `airflow.operators.python_operator.ShortCircuitOperator` →
`airflow.operators.python.ShortCircuitOperator`
* `airflow.operators.latest_only_operator.LatestOnlyOperator` →
`airflow.operators.latest_only.LatestOnlyOperator`
In additional to the changes above, this PR also add utility functions
and improve docstring.
## Test Plan
A test fixture is included in the PR.
## Summary
Changes two things about the entry:
* make the example valid TOML - inline tables must be a single line, at
least till v1.1.0 is released,
but also while in the future the toml version used by ruff might handle
it, it would probably be
good to stick to a spec that's readable by the vast majority of other
tools and versions as well,
especially if people are using `pyproject.toml`. The current example
leads to `ruff` failure.
See https://github.com/toml-lang/toml/pull/904
* adds a line about the ability to add non-Python files to the map,
which I think is a specific and
important feature people should know about (in fact, I would assume this
could potentially
become the single biggest use-case for this).
## Test Plan
Ran doc creation as described in the
[contribution](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/contributing/#mkdocs) guide.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
Part of #13773
This PR adds diagnostics when there is a length mismatch during
unpacking between the number of target expressions and the number of
types for the unpack value expression.
There are 3 cases of diagnostics here where the first two occurs when
there isn't a starred expression and the last one occurs when there's a
starred expression:
1. Number of target expressions is **less** than the number of types
that needs to be unpacked
2. Number of target expressions is **greater** then the number of types
that needs to be unpacked
3. When there's a starred expression as one of the target expression and
the number of target expressions is greater than the number of types
Examples for all each of the above cases:
```py
# red-knot: Too many values to unpack (expected 2, got 3) [lint:invalid-assignment]
a, b = (1, 2, 3)
# red-knot: Not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1) [lint:invalid-assignment]
a, b = (1,)
# red-knot: Not enough values to unpack (expected 3 or more, got 2) [lint:invalid-assignment]
a, *b, c, d = (1, 2)
```
The (3) case is a bit special because it uses a distinct wording
"expected n or more" instead of "expected n" because of the starred
expression.
### Location
The diagnostic location is the target expression that's being unpacked.
For nested targets, the location will be the nested expression. For
example:
```py
(a, (b, c), d) = (1, (2, 3, 4), 5)
# ^^^^^^
# red-knot: Too many values to unpack (expected 2, got 3) [lint:invalid-assignment]
```
For future improvements, it would be useful to show the context for why
this unpacking failed. For example, for why the expected number of
targets is `n`, we can highlight the relevant elements for the value
expression.
In the **ecosystem**, **Pyright** uses the target expressions for
location while **mypy** uses the value expression for the location. For
example:
```py
if 1:
# mypy: Too many values to unpack (2 expected, 3 provided) [misc]
# vvvvvvvvv
a, b = (1, 2, 3)
# ^^^^
# Pyright: Expression with type "tuple[Literal[1], Literal[2], Literal[3]]" cannot be assigned to target tuple
# Type "tuple[Literal[1], Literal[2], Literal[3]]" is incompatible with target tuple
# Tuple size mismatch; expected 2 but received 3 [reportAssignmentType]
# red-knot: Too many values to unpack (expected 2, got 3) [lint:invalid-assignment]
```
## Test Plan
Update existing test cases TODO with the error directives.
Fixes: #15176
## Summary
Neither of these rules make any sense in stub files. Technically TC007
should already not have triggered, due to the typing only context of the
binding, but it's better to be explicit.
Keeping TC008 enabled on the other hand makes sense to me, although we
could probably be more aggressive with unquoting in a typing runtime
context.
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run`
## Summary
Ref:
3533d7f5b4 (r150651102)
This PR removes the `Ranged` implementation on `DefinitionKind` and
instead uses a method called `target_range` to avoid any confusion about
what range this is for i.e., it's not the range of the node that
represents the definition.
## Summary
Related to #13773
This PR adds support for unpacking `for` statement targets.
This involves updating the `value` field in the `Unpack` target to use
an enum which specifies the "where did the value expression came from?".
This is because for an iterable expression, we need to unpack the
iterator type while for assignment statement we need to unpack the value
type itself. And, this needs to be done in the unpack query.
### Question
One of the ways unpacking works in `for` statement is by looking at the
union of the types because if the iterable expression is a tuple then
the iterator type will be union of all the types in the tuple. This
means that the test cases that will test the unpacking in `for`
statement will also implicitly test the unpacking union logic. I was
wondering if it makes sense to merge these cases and only add the ones
that are specific to the union unpacking or for statement unpacking
logic.
## Test Plan
Add test cases involving iterating over a tuple type. I've intentionally
left out certain cases for now and I'm curious to know any thoughts on
the above query.
Christian Clauss
Wei Lee
InSync
Arnav Gupta
Avasam
Dhruv Manilawala
purajit
wookie184
Micha Reiser
renovate[bot]
David Salvisberg
Shantanu
Victorien
Enoch Kan
sobolevn
Harutaka Kawamura