## Summary
As promised in #15603 - the **highly** sophisticated change - adding
missing config docstrings that are used in command completions.
## Test Plan
I actually made a local change to emit all empty items and verified
there are none now, before opening the PR.
## Summary
This PR extends our [PEP 695](https://peps.python.org/pep-0695) handling
from the type aliases handled by `UP040` to generic function and class
parameters, as suggested in the latter two examples from #4617:
```python
# Input
T = TypeVar("T", bound=float)
class A(Generic[T]):
...
def f(t: T):
...
# Output
class A[T: float]:
...
def f[T: float](t: T):
...
```
I first implemented this as part of `UP040`, but based on a brief
discussion during a very helpful pairing session with @AlexWaygood, I
opted to split them into rules separate from `UP040` and then also
separate from each other. From a quick look, and based on [this
issue](https://github.com/asottile/pyupgrade/issues/836), I'm pretty
sure neither of these rules is currently in pyupgrade, so I just took
the next available codes, `UP046` and `UP047`.
The last main TODO, noted in the rule file and in the fixture, is to
handle generic method parameters not included in the class itself, `S`
in this case:
```python
T = TypeVar("T")
S = TypeVar("S")
class Foo(Generic[T]):
def bar(self, x: T, y: S) -> S: ...
```
but Alex mentioned that that might be okay to leave for a follow-up PR.
I also left a TODO about handling multiple subclasses instead of bailing
out when more than one is present. I'm not sure how common that would
be, but I can still handle it here, or follow up on that too.
I think this is unrelated to the PR, but when I ran `cargo dev
generate-all`, it removed the rule code `PLW0101` from
`ruff.schema.json`. It seemed unrelated, so I left that out, but I
wanted to mention it just in case.
## Test Plan
New test fixture, `cargo nextest run`
Closes#4617, closes#12542
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
Add a setting to allow ignoring one line docstrings for the pydoclint
rules.
Resolves#13086
Part of #12434
## Test Plan
Run tests with setting enabled.
---------
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@gmail.com>
## Summary
Implements upstream diagnostics `PT029`, `PT030`, `PT031` that function
as pytest.warns corollaries of `PT010`, `PT011`, `PT012` respectively.
Most of the implementation and documentation is designed to mirror those
existing diagnostics.
Closes#14239
## Test Plan
Tests for `PT029`, `PT030`, `PT031` largely copied from `PT010`,
`PT011`, `PT012` respectively.
`cargo nextest run`
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
Adds `class-as-data-structure` rule (`B903`). Also compare pylint's `too-few-public-methods` (`PLR0903`).
Took some creative liberty with this by allowing the class to have any
decorators or base classes. There are years-old issues on pylint that
don't approve of the strictness when it comes to these things.
Especially considering that dataclass is a decorator and namedtuple _can
be_ a base class. I feel ignoring those explicitly is redundant all
things considered, but it's not a hill I'm willing to die on!
See: #970
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR re-introduces the control-flow graph implementation which was
first introduced in #5384, and then removed in #9463 due to not being
feature complete. Mainly, it lacked the ability to process
`try`-`except` blocks, along with some more minor bugs.
Closes#8958 and #8959 and #14881.
## Overview of Changes
I will now highlight the major changes implemented in this PR, in order
of implementation.
1. Introduced a post-processing step in loop handling to find any
`continue` or `break` statements within the loop body and redirect them
appropriately.
2. Introduced a loop-continue block which is always placed at the end of
loop blocks, and ensures proper looping regardless of the internal logic
of the block. This resolves#8958.
3. Implemented `try` processing with the following logic (resolves
#8959):
1. In the example below the cfg first encounters a conditional
`ExceptionRaised` forking if an exception was (or will be) raised in the
try block. This is not possible to know (except for trivial cases) so we
assume both paths can be taken unconditionally.
2. Going down the `try` path the cfg goes `try`->`else`->`finally`
unconditionally.
3. Going down the `except` path the cfg will meet several conditional
`ExceptionCaught` which fork depending on the nature of the exception
caught. Again there's no way to know which exceptions may be raised so
both paths are assumed to be taken unconditionally.
4. If none of the exception blocks catch the exception then the cfg
terminates by raising a new exception.
5. A post-processing step is also implemented to redirect any `raises`
or `returns` within the blocks appropriately.
```python
def func():
try:
print("try")
except Exception:
print("Exception")
except OtherException as e:
print("OtherException")
else:
print("else")
finally:
print("finally")
```
```mermaid
flowchart TD
start(("Start"))
return(("End"))
block0[["`*(empty)*`"]]
block1["print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
block2["print(#quot;else#quot;)\n"]
block3["print(#quot;try#quot;)\n"]
block4[["Exception raised"]]
block5["print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)\n"]
block6["try:
print(#quot;try#quot;)
except Exception:
print(#quot;Exception#quot;)
except OtherException as e:
print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)
else:
print(#quot;else#quot;)
finally:
print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
block7["print(#quot;Exception#quot;)\n"]
block8["try:
print(#quot;try#quot;)
except Exception:
print(#quot;Exception#quot;)
except OtherException as e:
print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)
else:
print(#quot;else#quot;)
finally:
print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
block9["try:
print(#quot;try#quot;)
except Exception:
print(#quot;Exception#quot;)
except OtherException as e:
print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)
else:
print(#quot;else#quot;)
finally:
print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
start --> block9
block9 -- "Exception raised" --> block8
block9 -- "else" --> block3
block8 -- "Exception" --> block7
block8 -- "else" --> block6
block7 --> block1
block6 -- "OtherException" --> block5
block6 -- "else" --> block4
block5 --> block1
block4 --> return
block3 --> block2
block2 --> block1
block1 --> block0
block0 --> return
```
6. Implemented `with` processing with the following logic:
1. `with` statements have no conditional execution (apart from the
hidden logic handling the enter and exit), so the block is assumed to
execute unconditionally.
2. The one exception is that exceptions raised within the block may
result in control flow resuming at the end of the block. Since it is not
possible know if an exception will be raised, or if it will be handled
by the context manager, we assume that execution always continues after
`with` blocks even if the blocks contain `raise` or `return` statements.
This is handled in a post-processing step.
## Test Plan
Additional test fixtures and control-flow fixtures were added.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@gmail.com>
## 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
Many core Airflow features have been deprecated and moved to Airflow
Providers since users might need to install an additional package (e.g.,
`apache-airflow-provider-fab==1.0.0`); a separate rule (AIR303) is
created for this.
As some of the changes only relate to the module/package moved, instead
of listing out all the functions, variables, and classes in a module or
a package, it warns the user to import from the new path instead of the
specific name.
The following is the ones that has been moved to
`apache-airflow-provider-fab==1.0.0`
* module moved
* `airflow.api.auth.backend.basic_auth` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.api.auth.backend.basic_auth`
* `airflow.api.auth.backend.kerberos_auth` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.api.auth.backend.kerberos_auth`
* `airflow.auth.managers.fab.api.auth.backend.kerberos_auth` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.api.auth.backend.kerberos_auth`
* `airflow.auth.managers.fab.security_manager.override` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.security_manager.override`
* classes (e.g., functions, classes) moved
* `airflow.www.security.FabAirflowSecurityManagerOverride` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.security_manager.override.FabAirflowSecurityManagerOverride`
* `airflow.auth.managers.fab.fab_auth_manager.FabAuthManager` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.security_manager.FabAuthManager`
## Test Plan
A test fixture has been included for the rule.
This PR improves on #14477 by:
- Ensuring user's do not require the module alias "__debug__", which is unassignable
- Validating the linter settings for
`lint.flake8-import-conventions.extend-aliases` (whereas previously we
only did this for `lint.flake8-import-conventions.aliases`).
Closes#14662
## Summary
This PR implements new rule discussed
[here](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/discussions/14449).
In short, it searches for assert messages which were unintentionally
used as a expression to be matched against.
## Test Plan
`cargo test` and review of `ruff-ecosystem`
## Summary
Implements `redundant-bool-literal`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
`cargo test`
The ecosystem results are all correct, but for `Airflow` the rule is not
relevant due to the use of overloading (and is marked as unsafe
correctly).
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
