<!--
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
Resolves#12636
Consider docstrings which begin with the word "Returns" as having
satisfactorily documented they're returns. For example
```python
def f():
"""Returns 1."""
return 1
```
is valid.
## Test Plan
Added example to test fixture.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
## Summary
Removes set comprehension as a violation for `sum` when checking `C419`,
because set comprehension may de-duplicate entries in a generator,
thereby modifying the value of the sum.
Closes#12690.
## Summary
Make it a violation of `C409` to call `tuple` with a list or set
comprehension, and
implement the (unsafe) fix of calling the `tuple` with the underlying
generator instead.
Closes#12648.
## Test Plan
Test fixture updated, cargo test, docs checked for updated description.
## Summary
Adds autofix for `RUF007`
## Test Plan
`cargo test`, however I get errors for `test resolver::tests::symlink
... FAILED` which seems to not be my fault
## Summary
Fixes#12630.
DOC501 and DOC502 now understand functions with constructs like this to
be explicitly raising `TypeError` (which should be documented in a
function's docstring):
```py
try:
foo():
except TypeError:
...
raise
```
I made an exception for `Exception` and `BaseException`, however.
Constructs like this are reasonably common, and I don't think anybody
would say that it's worth putting in the docstring that it raises "some
kind of generic exception":
```py
try:
foo()
except BaseException:
do_some_logging()
raise
```
## Test Plan
`cargo test -p ruff_linter --lib`
## Summary
Please see
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/12605#discussion_r1699957443 for
a description of the issue.
They way I fixed it is to get the *last* timeout item in the `with`, and
if it's an `async with` and there are items after it, then don't trigger
the lint.
## Test Plan
Updated the fixture with some more cases.
Changes the red-knot benchmark to run on the stdlib "tomllib" library
(which is self-contained, four files, uses type annotations) instead of
on very small bits of handwritten code.
Also remove the `without_parse` benchmark: now that we are running on
real code that uses typeshed, we'd either have to pre-parse all of
typeshed (slow) or find some way to determine which typeshed modules
will be used by the benchmark (not feasible with reasonable complexity.)
## Test Plan
`cargo bench -p ruff_benchmark --bench red_knot`
## Summary
This PR separates the current `red_knot` crate into two crates:
1. `red_knot` - This will be similar to the `ruff` crate, it'll act as
the CLI crate
2. `red_knot_workspace` - This includes everything except for the CLI
functionality from the existing `red_knot` crate
Note that the code related to the file watcher is in
`red_knot_workspace` for now but might be required to extract it out in
the future.
The main motivation for this change is so that we can have a `red_knot
server` command. This makes it easier to test the server out without
making any changes in the VS Code extension. All we need is to specify
the `red_knot` executable path in `ruff.path` extension setting.
## Test Plan
- `cargo build`
- `cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets --all-features`
- `cargo shear --fix`
## Summary
There's still a problem here. Given:
```python
class Class():
pass
# comment
# another comment
a = 1
```
We only add one newline before `a = 1` on the first pass, because
`max_precedling_blank_lines` is 1... We then add the second newline on
the second pass, so it ends up in the right state, but the logic is
clearly wonky.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/11508.
I hit this `todo!` trying to run type inference over some real modules.
Since it's a one-liner to implement it, I just did that rather than
changing to `Type::Unknown`.
## Summary
@zanieb noticed while we were discussing #12595 that this flag is now
unnecessary, so remove it and the flags which reference it.
## Test Plan
Question for maintainers: is there a test to add *or* remove here? (I’ve
opened this as a draft PR with that in view!)
Micha Reiser
Auguste Lalande
Dhruv Manilawala
Steve C
Dylan
Alex Waygood
Carl Meyer
epenet
Charlie Marsh
Ran Benita
github-actions[bot]
Chris Krycho
Eero Vaher