Since i just spent quite some time wondering why my benchmarks were the
opposite of what they should be, a reminder to check your cpu governor.
Setting mine to perf mode was crucial.
## Summary
I noticed the example line in CONTRIBUTING.md:
```shell
cargo install nextest
```
Didn't appear to install the intended package cargo-nextest.
So I checked what it [should
be](https://nexte.st/book/installing-from-source.html) and replaced the
line:
```shell
cargo install cargo-nextest --locked
```
## Test Plan
Just checked the cargo install appeared to give sane looking results
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
We've had success with `nextest` in other projects, so lets migrate
Ruff.
The Linux tests look a little bit faster (from 2m32s down to 2m8s), the
Windows tests look a little bit slower but not dramatically so.
## Summary
This surprised me while working on adding a test. I thought about adding
an additional `note`, but how often is this incorrect? In general,
people reading the contributing guidelines probably want to enable this
flag and those who don't will know enough about the testing setup to
have their own commands/aliases.
## Test Plan
Ran CI on local fork and got an all green.
## Summary
Long ago, we had a single `ruff` crate. We started to break that up, and
at some point, we wanted to separate the CLI from the core library. So
we created `ruff_cli`, which created a `ruff` binary. Later, the `ruff`
crate was renamed to `ruff_linter` and further broken up into additional
crates.
(This is all from memory -- I didn't bother to look through the history
to ensure that this is 100% correct :))
Now that `ruff` no longer exists, this PR renames `ruff_cli` to `ruff`.
The primary benefit is that the binary target and the crate name are now
the same, which helps with downstream tooling like `cargo-dist`, and
also removes some complexity from the crate and `Cargo.toml` itself.
## Test Plan
- Ran `rm -rf target/release`.
- Ran `cargo build --release`.
- Verified that `./target/release/ruff` was created.
## Summary
I found that `cargo benchmark lexer` didn't work as expected:
```shell
❯ cargo benchmark lexer
Finished bench [optimized] target(s) in 0.08s
Running benches/formatter.rs (target/release/deps/formatter-4e1d9bf9d3ba529d)
Running benches/linter.rs (target/release/deps/linter-e449086ddfd8ad8c)
```
Turns out that `cargo bench -p ruff_benchmark` is now recommended over
`cargo benchmark`, so updating the docs to reflect that.
This should have been done before the actual release, so we add another
step to `CONTRIBUTING.md` to make sure it gets done in the future.
This doesn't fix https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9234
completely, but it's a step in the right direction.
This sets `lto = "thin"` instead of using "fat" LTO, and sets
`codegen-units = 16`. These are the defaults for Cargo's `release`
profile, and I think it may give us faster iteration times, especially
when benchmarking. The point of this PR is to see what kind of impact
this has on benchmarks. It is expected that benchmarks may regress to
some extent.
I did some quick ad hoc experiments to quantify this change in compile
times. Namely, I ran:
cargo build --profile release -p ruff_cli
Then I ran
touch crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/expression/string/docstring.rs
(because that's where i've been working lately) and re-ran
cargo build --profile release -p ruff_cli
This last command is what I timed, since it reflects how much time one
has to wait between making a change and getting a compiled artifact.
Here are my results:
* With status quo `release` profile, build takes 77s
* with `release` but `lto = "thin"`, build takes 41s
* with `release`, but `lto = false`, build takes 19s
* with `release`, but `lto = false` **and** `codegen-units = 16`, build
takes 7s
* with `release`, but `lto = "thin"` **and** `codegen-units = 16`, build
takes 16s (i believe this is the default `release` configuration)
This PR represents the last option. It's not the fastest to compile, but
it's nearly a whole minute faster! The idea is that with `codegen-units
= 16`, we still make use of parallelism, but keep _some_ level of LTO on
to try and re-gain what we lose by increasing the number of codegen
units.
I'd rather not be the only one who can easily generate our changelog
entries so I invested some time to get Rooster a bit further along and
add instructions.
<!--
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? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
We're planning to move the documentation from
[https://beta.ruff.rs/docs](https://beta.ruff.rs/docs) to
[https://docs.astral.sh/ruff](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff), for a few
reasons:
1. We want to remove the `beta` from the domain, as Ruff is no longer
considered beta software.
2. We want to migrate to a structure that could accommodate multiple
future tools living under one domain.
The docs are actually already live at
[https://docs.astral.sh/ruff](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff), but later
today, I'll add a permanent redirect from the previous to the new
domain. **All existing links will continue to work, now and in
perpetuity.**
This PR contains the code changes necessary for the updated
documentation. As part of this effort, I moved the playground and
documentation from my personal Cloudflare account to our team Cloudflare
account (hence the new `--project-name` references). After merging, I'll
also update the secrets on this repo.
## Summary
This PR moves `ruff/jupyter` into its own `ruff_notebook` crate. Beyond
the move itself, there were a few challenges:
1. `ruff_notebook` relies on the source map abstraction. I've moved the
source map into `ruff_diagnostics`, since it doesn't have any
dependencies on its own and is used alongside diagnostics.
2. `ruff_notebook` has a couple tests for end-to-end linting and
autofixing. I had to leave these tests in `ruff` itself.
3. We had code in `ruff/jupyter` that relied on Python lexing, in order
to provide a more targeted error message in the event that a user saves
a `.py` file with a `.ipynb` extension. I removed this in order to avoid
a dependency on the parser, it felt like it wasn't worth retaining just
for that dependency.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
**Summary** Some files seems notoriously slow in the formatter (secons in debug mode). This time was however almost exclusively spent in the diff algorithm to collect the similarity index, so i replaced that. I kept `similar` for printing actual diff to avoid rewriting that too, with the disadvantage that we now have to diff libraries in format_dev.
I used this PR to remove the spinner from tracing-indicatif and changed `flamegraph --perfdata perf.data` to `flamegraph --perfdata perf.data --no-inline` as the former wouldn't finish for me on release builds with debug info.
<!--
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? -->
To enable the git hooks, `pre-commit install` needs to be executed.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A
## Summary
In Ruff only a subset of rules are enabled by default. This change
change aims to clarify that when adding a new rule, you must explicitly
use the `--select name_of_rule` command to ensure the rule gets
executed.
This was talked about on Discord a while back.
## Test Plan
Checked docs via mkdocs
<!--
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? -->
As of right now, the instructions don't specify where to run ruff from
after cloning the repository this is to address that. Super trivial
change, but helpful for real newbies I think.
## Summary
This PR attempts to draw some basic separation between the `Checker`'s
traversal responsibilities (traversing the AST, building the semantic
model) and its calling-out-to-lint-rule responsibilities. It doesn't try
to introduce any sophisticated API. Instead, it just moves all of the
lint rule calls out of `checkers/ast/mod.rs` and into methods in a new
`analyze` module. (There are four remaining lint rules in `Checker`, but
I'll remove those in future PRs.)
I'm not trying to "solve" our lint rule API here. Instead, I'm trying to
make two improvements:
1. `checkers/ast/mod.rs` has just gotten way too large, and people work
in it all the time. Prior to this PR, it was 5.5k lines, which led to
significant lags in my editor and made it really hard to reason about
the parts that are _actually_ important. (I like big files, but this one
crossed the line for me.) Now, it's < 2,000 lines, and the code is much
more focused.
2. I want to avoid accidentally adding lint rules in the "wrong" parts
of the traversal. By confining lint rule invocations to these "analyze"
calls, we'll avoid (e.g.) putting them in the binding phase.
## Summary
This crate now contains utilities for dealing with trivia more broadly:
whitespace, newlines, "simple" trivia lexing, etc. So renaming it to
reflect its increased responsibilities.
To avoid conflicts, I've also renamed `Token` and `TokenKind` to
`SimpleToken` and `SimpleTokenKind`.
Moves the computation of the `start_offset` for overlong lines to just
before the result is returned. There is a slight overhead for overlong
lines (double the work for the first `limit` characters).
In practice this results in a speedup on the CPython codebase. Most
lines are not overlong, or are not enforced because the line ends with a
URL, or does not contain whitespace. Nonetheless, the 0.3% of overlong
lines are a lot compared to other violations.
### Before
_Selected W505 and E501_
_All rules_
### After
_Selected W505 and E501_
_All rules_
CPython line statistics:
- Number of Python lines: 867.696
- Number of overlong lines: 2.963 (0.3%)
<details>
Benchmark selected:
```shell
cargo build --release && hyperfine --warmup 10 --min-runs 50 \
"./target/release/ruff ./crates/ruff/resources/test/cpython/ --no-cache -e --select W505,E501"
```
Benchmark all:
```shell
cargo build --release && hyperfine --warmup 10 --min-runs 50 \
"./target/release/ruff ./crates/ruff/resources/test/cpython/ --no-cache -e --select ALL"
```
Overlong lines in CPython
```shell
cargo run -p ruff_cli -- check crates/ruff/resources/test/cpython/Lib --no-cache --select=E501,W505 --statistics
```
Total Python lines:
```shell
find crates/ruff/resources/test/cpython/ -name '*.py' | xargs wc -l
```
</details>
(Performance tested on Mac M1)
## Summary
This adds links to issue categories that are good for people looking to
implement something and a link to the contributing guide feedback issue
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/5684)
---------
Co-authored-by: Zanie <contact@zanie.dev>
## Summary
Document all `ruff_dev` subcommands and document the `format_dev` flags
in the formatter readme.
CC @zanieb please flag everything that isn't clear or missing
## Test Plan
n/a
This moves all docs about benchmarking and profiling into
CONTRIBUTING.md by moving the readme of `ruff_benchmark` and adding more
information on profiling.
We need to somehow consolidate that documentation, but i'm not convinced
that this is the best way (i tried subpages in mkdocs, but that didn't
seem good either), so i'm happy to take suggestions.
## Summary
Currently, it is possible to create a tag and then have the release
fail, which is a problem since we can't edit the tag
(https://github.com/charliermarsh/ruff/issues/4468). This change the
release process so that the tag is created inside the release workflow.
This leaves as a failure mode that we have published to pypi but then
creating the tag or GitHub release doesn't work, but in this case we can
restart and the pypi upload is just skipped because we use the skip
existing option.
The release workflow is started by a workflow dispatch with the tag
instead of creating the tag yourself. You can start the release workflow
without a tag to do a dry run which does not publish an artifacts. You
can optionally add a git sha to the workflow run and it will verify that
the release runs on the mentioned commit.
This also adds docs on how to release and a small style improvement for
the maturin integration.
## Test Plan
Testing is hard since we can't do real releases, i've tested a minimized
workflow in a separate dummy repository.
This tackles three problems:
* pre-commit was slow because it ran cargo commands
* Improve the clarity on what you need to run to get your PR pass on CI
(and make those fast)
* You had to compile and run `cargo dev generate-all` separately, which
was slow
The first change is to remove all cargo commands except running ruff
itself from pre-commit. With `cargo run --bin ruff` already compiled it
takes about 7s on my machine. It would make sense to also use the ruff
pre-commit action here even if we're then lagging a release behind for
checking ruff on ruff.
The contributing guide is now clear about what you need to run:
```shell
cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings # Linting...
RUFF_UPDATE_SCHEMA=1 cargo test # Testing and updating ruff.schema.json
pre-commit run --all-files # rust and python formatting, markdown and python linting, etc.
```
Example timings from my machine:
`cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings`:
23s
`RUFF_UPDATE_SCHEMA=1 cargo test`: 2min (recompiling), 1min (no code
changes, this is mainly doc tests)
`pre-commit run --all-files`: 7s
The exact numbers don't matter so much as the approximate experience (6s
is easier to just wait than 1min, esp if you need to fix and rerun). The
biggest remaining block seems to be doc tests, i'm surprised i didn't
find any solution to speeding them up (nextest simply doesn't run them
at all). Also note that the formatter has it's own tests which are much
faster since they avoid linking ruff (`cargo test
ruff_python_formatter`).
The third change is to enable `cargo test` to update the schema. Similar
to `INSTA_UPDATE=always`, i've added `RUFF_UPDATE_SCHEMA=1` (name open
to bikeshedding), so `RUFF_UPDATE_SCHEMA=1 cargo test` updates the
schema, while `cargo test` still fails as expected if the repo isn't
up-to-date.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
* Document codes.rs
* Refactor codes.rs before merging
Helper script:
```python
# %%
from pathlib import Path
codes = Path("crates/ruff/src/codes.rs").read_text().splitlines()
rules = Path("a.txt").read_text().strip().splitlines()
rule_map = {i.split("::")[-1]: i for i in rules}
# %%
codes_new = []
for line in codes:
if ", Rule::" in line:
left, right = line.split(", Rule::")
right = right[:-2]
line = left + ", " + rule_map[right] + "),"
codes_new.append(line)
# %%
Path("crates/ruff/src/codes.rs").write_text("\n".join(codes_new))
```
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Plasse <13716151+JonathanPlasse@users.noreply.github.com>
konsti
Owen Lamont
Charlie Marsh
Daniël van Noord
Mark Byrne
Jack McIvor
Zanie Blue
Andrew Gallant
Farookh Zaheer Siddiqui
Clément Schreiner
Anders Kaseorg
Harutaka Kawamura
Micha Reiser
Victor Hugo Gomes
Paul Mairo
Simon Brugman
Dhruv Manilawala