## Summary
I always found it odd that we had to pass this in, since it's really
higher-level context for the error. The awkwardness is further evidenced
by the fact that we pass in fake values everywhere (even outside of
tests). The source path isn't actually used to display the error; it's
only accessed elsewhere to _re-display_ the error in certain cases. This
PR modifies to instead pass the path directly in those cases.
## Summary
This PR modifies the semantics of `runtime-evaluated-decorators` to
respect decorators on both classes _and_ functions. Historically, this
only respected classes, since the common use-case is (e.g.)
`pydantic.BaseModel` -- but functions are equally valid.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9312.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This helps a bit with (but does not close) the issues described in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9311. E.g., now, we at least
see: `error: Failed to format main.py: source contains syntax errors:
invalid syntax. Got unexpected token '=' at byte offset 20`.
## Summary
Given:
```python
from somewhere import get_cfg
def lookup_cfg(cfg_description):
cfg = get_cfg(cfg_description)
if cfg is not None:
return cfg
raise AttributeError(f"No cfg found matching {cfg_description}")
```
We were analyzing the method from last-to-first statement. So we saw the
`raise`, then assumed the method _always_ raised. In reality, though, it
_might_ return. This PR improves the branch analysis to respect these
mixed cases.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9269.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9304.
## Summary
Remove `:` for PLR0917 to make all PLR09XX message look the same
```
PLR0904 Too many public methods (21 > 20)
PLR0911 Too many return statements (16 > 6)
PLR0912 Too many branches (13 > 12)
PLR0913 Too many arguments in function definition (10 > 5)
PLR0915 Too many statements (118 > 50)
PLR0917 Too many positional arguments: (15/5)
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Signed-off-by: Mikael Arguedas <mikael.arguedas@gmail.com>
## 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)
Adds the ability to override `ruff.toml` or `pyproject.toml` settings
per-project during ecosystem checks.
Exploring this as a fix for the `setuptools` project error.
Also useful for including Jupyter Notebooks in the ecosystem checks, see
#9293
Note the remaining `sphinx` project error is resolved in #9294
Failing due to
> error: Failed to read tests/roots/test-pycode/cp_1251_coded.py: stream
did not contain valid UTF-8
Unclear to me if ignoring is the correct response.
## Summary
If a rule ends with a trailing placeholder (like "Use {target}"), that
gets interpreted as an HTML attribute adding, `target="target"` to the
node. This PR escapes such cases. In reality, they're rare, since we
almost always wrap placeholders in backticks, which avoids this problem
-- but in some cases, they are in fact correct to be un-backticked.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9288.
## Test Plan
<img width="673" alt="Screen Shot 2023-12-28 at 9 33 40 AM"
src="https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/assets/1309177/14aaa168-c802-4258-b82d-217a85b42ebf">
## Summary
Hey there 👋 thanks for this great project!
On python code looking like the following
```
import yaml
from yaml.loader import SafeLoader
with MY_FILE_PATH.open("r") as my_file:
my_data = yaml.load(my_file, Loader=SafeLoader)
```
ruff reports this error:
```
S506 Probable use of unsafe loader `SafeLoader` with `yaml.load`. Allows instantiation of arbitrary objects. Consider `yaml.safe_load`.
```
This PR is an attempt to support SafeLoader being imported for either
`yaml` or `yaml.loader`
Disclaimer:
I am not familiar with Rust so this is likely not the better way of
doing it. Interested in hearing how to adapt this PR to provide similar
behavior in a better way
## Test Plan
The S506.py file was updated accordingly to cover the use cases and test
were confirmed to pass with this change.
## Summary
If `RUF100` is ignored via `per-file-ignores`, we need to avoid raising
it. `RUF100` has special "self-ignore" logic, since the rule itself
deals with `# noqa` directives. This PR wires up `per-file-ignores` to
that "self-ignore" logic.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9297.
We should avoid adding `-> None` to stubs in `.pyi` files, along with a
few other cases. (We already ignore abstract methods.)
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9270.
## Summary
This PR adds some helper structs to the linter paths to enable passing
in the pre-computed tokens and parsed source code during benchmarking,
to remove lexing and parsing from the overall linter benchmark
measurement. We already remove parsing for the formatter, and we have
separate benchmarks for the lexer and the parser, so this should make it
much easier to measure linter performance changes.
Charlie Marsh
Zanie Blue
Shantanu
Mikael Arguedas
Mike Bernard
Tetsuo Koyama
Micha Reiser
Steve C
dependabot[bot]
Henry Schreiner