## Summary
I wondered if this might improve performance a little. It doesn't seem
to, but it's a net reduction in LOC and I think the changes make sense.
I think it's worth it anyway just in terms of simplifying the code.
## Test Plan
Our existing tests all pass and the primer report is clean (aside from
our usual flakes).
## Summary
fixes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2027
This PR fixes a bug where the type mapping for a `ParamSpec` was not
being applied in an overloaded function.
This PR also fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2081 and
reveals new diagnostics which doesn't look related to the bug:
```py
from prefect import flow, task
@task
def task_get() -> int:
"""Task get integer."""
return 42
@task
def task_add(x: int, y: int) -> int:
"""Task add two integers."""
print(f"Adding {x} and {y}")
return x + y
@flow
def my_flow():
"""My flow."""
x = 23
future_y = task_get.submit()
# error: [no-matching-overload]
task_add(future_y, future_y)
# error: [no-matching-overload]
task_add(x, future_y)
```
The reason is that the type of `future_y` is `PrefectFuture[int]` while
the type of `task_add` is `Task[(x: int, y: int), int]` which means that
the assignment between `int` and `PrefectFuture[int]` fails which
results in no overload matching. Pyright also raises the invalid
argument type error on all three usages of `future_y` in those two
calls.
## Test Plan
Add regression mdtest from the linked issue.
@dhruvmanila encountered this in #22416 — there are two different
`TypeMapping` variants for apply a specialization to a type. One
operates on a full `Specialization` instance, the other on a partially
constructed one. If we move this enum-ness "down a level" it reduces
some copy/paste in places where we are operating on a `TypeMapping`.
## Summary
Combines diagnostics for matched suppression comments, so that ranges
and autofixes for both
the `#ruff:disable` and `#ruff:enable` comments will be reported as a
single diagnostic.
## Test Plan
Snapshot changes, added new snapshot for full output from preview mode
rather than just a diff.
Issue #3711
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2292
When solving a bounded typevar, we preferred the upper bound over the
actual type seen in the call. This change fixes that.
## Test Plan
Added mdtest, existing tests pass.
By stripping leading indents from codefence lines to ensure they're
properly understood by markdown (but otherwise preserving the indent in
the codeblock so all the code renders roughly at the right indent).
As described in [this
comment](https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2352#issuecomment-3711686053)
this solution is very "do what I mean" for when a user has an explicit
markdown codeblock in e.g. a `Returns:` section which "has" to be
indented but that indent makes the verbatim codefence invalid markdown.
* Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2352
I am updating these because we didn't have test coverage for the
different handling of `fmt: skip` comments applied to multiple
statements on the same line. This is in preparation for #22119 (to show
before/after deviations).
Follows the same procedure as in #20794
Edit: As it happens, the new fixtures do not even cover the case
relevant to #22119 - they just deal with the already handled case of a
one-line compound statement. Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to make
this update, especially since it uncovered a (possible?) bug.
## Summary
This raises a `ValueError` at runtime:
```python
from functools import total_ordering
@total_ordering
class NoOrdering:
def __eq__(self, other: object) -> bool:
return True
```
Specifically:
```
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.11/lib/python3.11/functools.py", line 193, in total_ordering
raise ValueError('must define at least one ordering operation: < > <= >=')
ValueError: must define at least one ordering operation: < > <= >=
```
See: https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1202.
Summary
--
Closes#17091. `PLW1510` checks for `subprocess.run` calls without a
`check`
keyword argument and previously had a safe fix to add `check=False`.
That's the
default value, so technically it preserved the code's behavior, but as
discussed
in #17091 and #17087, Ruff can't actually know what the author intended.
I don't think it hurts to keep this as a display-only fix instead of
removing it
entirely, but it definitely shouldn't be safe at the very least.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
`logging.basicConfig` should not be called at a global module scope,
as that produces a race condition to configure logging based on which
module gets imported first. Logging should instead be initialized
in an entrypoint to the program, either in a `main()` or in the
typical `if __name__ == "__main__"` block.
## Summary
We use this profile in uv to create success, as an optimization for the
iterative test loop. We include `opt-level=1` because it ends up being
"worth it" for testing (empirically), even though it means the build is
actually a big slower than `dev` (if you remove `opt-level=1`, clean
compile is about 22% faster than `dev`).
Here are some benchmarks I generated with Claude -- the main motivator
here is the incremental testing for `ty_python_semantic` which is 2.4x
faster:
### `ty_python_semantic`
Full test suite (471 tests):
| Scenario | dev | fast-test | Improvement |
|-------------|-------|------------|-------------|
| Clean | 53s | 49s | 8% faster |
| Incremental | 17.8s | 6.8s | 2.4x faster |
Single test:
| Scenario | dev | fast-test | Improvement |
|-------------|-------|------------|-------------|
| Clean | 42.5s | 55.3s | 30% slower |
| Incremental | 6.5s | 6.1s | ~same |
### `ruff_linter`
Full test suite (2622 tests):
| Scenario | dev | fast-test | Improvement |
|-------------|-------|------------|-------------|
| Clean | 31s | 41s | 32% slower |
| Incremental | 11.9s | 10.5s | 12% faster |
Single test:
| Scenario | dev | fast-test | Improvement |
|-------------|------|------------|-------------|
| Clean | 26s | 36.5s | 40% slower |
| Incremental | 4.5s | 5.5s | 22% slower |
Snapshot tests recently started reporting this warning:
> Snapshot test passes but the existing value is in a legacy format.
> Please run cargo insta test --force-update-snapshots to update to a
> newer format.
This PR is the result of that forced update.
One file (crates/ruff_db/src/diagnostic/render/full.rs) seems to get
corrupted, because it contains strings with unprintable characters that
trigger some bug in cargo-insta. I've manually reverted that file, and
also manually reverted the `input_file:` lines, which we like.
