## Summary
The `SemanticModel` currently stores the "body" of a given `Suite`,
along with the current statement index. This is used to support "next
sibling" queries, but we only use this in exactly one place -- the rule
that simplifies constructs like this to `any` or `all`:
```python
for x in y:
if x == 0:
return True
return False
```
Instead of tracking the state, we can just do a (slightly more
expensive) traversal, by finding the node within its parent and
returning the next node in the body.
Note that we'll only have to do this extremely rarely -- namely, for
functions that contain something like:
```python
for x in y:
if x == 0:
return True
```
## Summary
In Python, the annotations on `x` and `y` here have very different
treatment:
```python
def foo(x: int):
y: int
```
The `int` in `x: int` is a runtime-required annotation, because `x` gets
added to the function's `__annotations__`. You'll notice, for example,
that this fails:
```python
from typing import TYPE_CHECKING
if TYPE_CHECKING:
from foo import Bar
def f(x: Bar):
...
```
Because `Bar` is required to be available at runtime, not just at typing
time. Meanwhile, this succeeds:
```python
from typing import TYPE_CHECKING
if TYPE_CHECKING:
from foo import Bar
def f():
x: Bar = 1
f()
```
(Both cases are fine if you use `from __future__ import annotations`.)
Historically, we've tracked those annotations that are _not_
runtime-required via the semantic model's `ANNOTATION` flag. But
annotations that _are_ runtime-required have been treated as "type
definitions" that aren't annotations.
This causes problems for the flake8-future-annotations rules, which try
to detect whether adding `from __future__ import annotations` would
_allow_ you to rewrite a type annotation. We need to know whether we're
in _any_ type annotation, runtime-required or not, since adding `from
__future__ import annotations` will convert any runtime-required
annotation to a typing-only annotation.
This PR adds separate state to track these runtime-required annotations.
The changes in the test fixtures are correct -- these were false
negatives before.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/5574.
## Summary
This PR enables us to resolve attribute accesses within files, at least
for static and class methods. For example, we can now detect that this
is a function access (and avoid a false-positive):
```python
class Class:
@staticmethod
def error():
return ValueError("Something")
# OK
raise Class.error()
```
Closes#5487.
Closes#5416.
## Summary
This PR extracts a bunch of complex logic from `add_binding`, instead
running the the shadowing rules in the deferred handler, thereby
decoupling the binding phase (during which we build up the semantic
model) from the analysis phase, and generally making `add_binding` much
more focused.
This was made possible by improving the semantic model to better handle
deletions -- previously, we'd "lose track" of bindings if they were
deleted, which made this kind of refactor impossible.
## Test Plan
We have good automated coverage for this, but I want to benchmark it
separately.
## Summary
In the latest release, we made some improvements to the semantic model,
but our modifications to exception-unbinding are causing some
false-positives. For example:
```py
try:
v = 3
except ImportError as v:
print(v)
else:
print(v)
```
In the latest release, we started unbinding `v` after the `except`
handler. (We used to restore the existing binding, the `v = 3`, but this
was quite complicated.) Because we don't have full branch analysis, we
can't then know that `v` is still bound in the `else` branch.
The solution here modifies `resolve_read` to skip-lookup when hitting
unbound exceptions. So when store the "unbind" for `except ImportError
as v`, we save the binding that it shadowed `v = 3`, and skip to that.
Closes#5249.
Closes#5250.
## Summary
After #5140, I audited the codebase for similar patterns (defining a
list of `CallPath` entities in a static vector, then looping over them
to pattern-match). This PR migrates all other such cases to use `match`
and `matches!` where possible.
There are a few benefits to this:
1. It more clearly denotes the intended semantics (branches are
exclusive).
2. The compiler can help deduplicate the patterns and detect unreachable
branches.
3. Performance: in the benchmark below, the all-rules performance is
increased by nearly 10%...
## Benchmarks
I decided to benchmark against a large file in the Airflow repository
with a lot of type annotations
([`views.py`](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/airflow/f03f73100e8a7d6019249889de567cb00e71e457/airflow/www/views.py)):
```
linter/default-rules/airflow/views.py
time: [10.871 ms 10.882 ms 10.894 ms]
thrpt: [19.739 MiB/s 19.761 MiB/s 19.781 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-2.7182% -2.5687% -2.4204%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
thrpt: [+2.4805% +2.6364% +2.7942%]
Performance has improved.
linter/all-rules/airflow/views.py
time: [24.021 ms 24.038 ms 24.062 ms]
thrpt: [8.9373 MiB/s 8.9461 MiB/s 8.9527 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-8.9537% -8.8516% -8.7527%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
thrpt: [+9.5923% +9.7112% +9.8342%]
Performance has improved.
Found 12 outliers among 100 measurements (12.00%)
5 (5.00%) high mild
7 (7.00%) high severe
```
The impact is dramatic -- nearly a 10% improvement for `all-rules`.
## Summary
In #5074, we introduced an abstraction to support local symbol renames
("local" here refers to "within a module"). However, that abstraction
didn't support `global` and `nonlocal` symbols. This PR extends it to
those cases.
Broadly, there are considerations.
First, if we're renaming a symbol in a scope in which it is declared
`global` or `nonlocal`. For example, given:
```python
x = 1
def foo():
global x
```
Then when renaming `x` in `foo`, we need to detect that it's `global`
and instead perform the rename starting from the module scope.
Second, when renaming a symbol, we need to determine the scopes in which
it is declared `global` or `nonlocal`. This is effectively the inverse
of the above: when renaming `x` in the module scope, we need to detect
that we should _also_ rename `x` in `foo`.
To support these cases, the renaming algorithm was adjusted as follows:
- When we start a rename in a scope, determine whether the symbol is
declared `global` or `nonlocal` by looking for a `global` or `nonlocal`
binding. If it is, start the rename in the defining scope. (This
requires storing the defining scope on the `nonlocal` binding, which is
new.)
- We then perform the rename in the defining scope.
- We then check whether the symbol was declared as `global` or
`nonlocal` in any scopes, and perform the rename in those scopes too.
(Thankfully, this doesn't need to be done recursively.)
Closes#5092.
## Test Plan
Added some additional snapshot tests.
## Summary
This PR tackles a corner case that we'll need to support local symbol
renaming. It relates to a nuance in how we want handle annotations
(i.e., `AnnAssign` statements with no value, like `x: int` in a function
body).
When we see a statement like:
```python
x: int
```
We create a `BindingKind::Annotation` for `x`. This is a special
`BindingKind` that the resolver isn't allowed to return. For example,
given:
```python
x: int
print(x)
```
The second line will yield an `undefined-name` error.
So why does this `BindingKind` exist at all? In Pyflakes, to support the
`unused-annotation` lint:
```python
def f():
x: int # unused-annotation
```
If we don't track `BindingKind::Annotation`, we can't lint for unused
variables that are only "defined" via annotations.
There are a few other wrinkles to `BindingKind::Annotation`. One is
that, if a binding already exists in the scope, we actually just discard
the `BindingKind`. So in this case:
```python
x = 1
x: int
```
When we go to create the `BindingKind::Annotation` for the second
statement, we notice that (1) we're creating an annotation but (2) the
scope already has binding for the name -- so we just drop the binding on
the floor. This has the nice property that annotations aren't considered
to "shadow" another binding, which is important in a bunch of places
(e.g., if we have `import os; os: int`, we still consider `os` to be an
import, as we should). But it also means that these "delayed"
annotations are one of the few remaining references that we don't track
anywhere in the semantic model.
This PR adds explicit support for these via a new `delayed_annotations`
attribute on the semantic model. These should be extremely rare, but we
do need to track them if we want to support local symbol renaming.
### This isn't the right way to model this
This isn't the right way to model this.
Here's an alternative:
- Remove `BindingKind::Annotation`, and treat annotations as their own,
separate concept.
- Instead of storing a map from name to `BindingId` on each `Scope`,
store a map from name to... `SymbolId`.
- Introduce a `Symbol` abstraction, where a symbol can point to a
current binding, and a list of annotations, like:
```rust
pub struct Symbol {
binding: Option<BindingId>,
annotations: Vec<AnnotationId>
}
```
If we did this, we could appropriately model the semantics described
above. When we go to resolve a binding, we ignore annotations (always).
When we try to find unused variables, we look through the list of
symbols, and have sufficient information to discriminate between
annotations and bound variables. Etc.
The main downside of this `Symbol`-based approach is that it's going to
take a lot more work to implement, and it'll be less performant (we'll
be storing more data per symbol, and our binding lookups will have an
added layer of indirection).
## Summary
Small follow-up to #4888 to add a dedicated `ResolvedRead` case for
unbound locals, mostly for clarity and documentation purposes (no
behavior changes).
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Our current mechanism for handling deletions (e.g., `del x`) is to
remove the symbol from the scope's `bindings` table. This "does the
right thing", in that if we then reference a deleted symbol, we're able
to determine that it's unbound -- but it causes a variety of problems,
mostly in that it makes certain bindings and references unreachable
after-the-fact.
Consider:
```python
x = 1
print(x)
del x
```
If we analyze this code _after_ running the semantic model over the AST,
we'll have no way of knowing that `x` was ever introduced in the scope,
much less that it was bound to a value, read, and then deleted --
because we effectively erased `x` from the model entirely when we hit
the deletion.
In practice, this will make it impossible for us to support local symbol
renames. It also means that certain rules that we want to move out of
the model-building phase and into the "check dead scopes" phase wouldn't
work today, since we'll have lost important information about the source
code.
This PR introduces two new `BindingKind` variants to model deletions:
- `BindingKind::Deletion`, which represents `x = 1; del x`.
- `BindingKind::UnboundException`, which represents:
```python
try:
1 / 0
except Exception as e:
pass
```
In the latter case, `e` gets unbound after the exception handler
(assuming it's triggered), so we want to handle it similarly to a
deletion.
The main challenge here is auditing all of our existing `Binding` and
`Scope` usages to understand whether they need to accommodate deletions
or otherwise behave differently. If you look one commit back on this
branch, you'll see that the code is littered with `NOTE(charlie)`
comments that describe the reasoning behind changing (or not) each of
those call sites. I've also augmented our test suite in preparation for
this change over a few prior PRs.
### Alternatives
As an alternative, I considered introducing a flag to `BindingFlags`,
like `BindingFlags::UNBOUND`, and setting that at the appropriate time.
This turned out to be a much more difficult change, because we tend to
match on `BindingKind` all over the place (e.g., we have a bunch of code
blocks that only run when a `BindingKind` is
`BindingKind::Importation`). As a result, introducing these new
`BindingKind` variants requires only a few changes at the client sites.
Adding a flag would've required a much wider-reaching change.
## Summary
This behavior dates back to a Pyflakes commit (5fc37cbd), which was used
to allow this test to pass:
```py
from __future__ import annotations
T: object
def f(t: T): pass
def g(t: 'T'): pass
```
But, I think this is an error. Mypy and Pyright don't accept it -- you
can only use variables as type annotations if they're type aliases
(i.e., annotated with `TypeAlias`), in which case, there has to be an
assignment on the right-hand side (see: [PEP
613](https://peps.python.org/pep-0613/)).
Charlie Marsh
Davide Canton
qdegraaf
Micha Reiser