"origin" was accurate since ruff rules are currently always modeled
after one origin (except the Ruff-specific rules).
Since we however want to introduce a many-to-many mapping between codes
and rules, the term "origin" no longer makes much sense. Rules usually
don't have multiple origins but one linter implements a rule first and
then others implement it later (often inspired from another linter).
But we don't actually care much about where a rule originates from when
mapping multiple rule codes to one rule implementation, so renaming
RuleOrigin to Linter is less confusing with the many-to-many system.
This commit fixes a bug accidentally introduced in
6cf770a692,
which resulted every `ruff --explain <code>` invocation to fail with:
thread 'main' panicked at 'Mismatch between definition and access of `explain`.
Could not downcast to ruff::registry::Rule, need to downcast to &ruff::registry::Rule',
ruff_cli/src/cli.rs:184:18
We also add an integration test for --explain to prevent such bugs from
going by unnoticed in the future.
This makes it easier to see which rules you're enabling when selecting
one of the pylint codes (like `PLC`). This also makes it clearer what
those abbreviations stand for. When I first saw the pylint section, I
was very confused by that, so other might be as well.
See it rendered here:
https://github.com/thomkeh/ruff/blob/patch-1/README.md#pylint-plc-ple-plr-plw
This lets you test the ruff linters or use the ruff library
without having to compile the ~100 additional dependencies
that are needed by the CLI.
Because we set the following in the [workspace] section of Cargo.toml:
default-members = [".", "ruff_cli"]
`cargo run` still runs the CLI and `cargo test` still tests
the code in src/ as well as the code in the new ruff_cli crate.
(But you can now also run `cargo test -p ruff` to only test the linters.)
Martin Fischer
Thomas MK