## Summary
This PR renames the `tab-size` configuration option to `indent-width` to
express that the formatter uses the option to determine the indentation
width AND as tab width.
I first preferred naming the option `tab-width` but then decided to go
with `indent-width` because:
* It aligns with the `indent-style` option
* It would allow us to write a lint rule that asserts that each
indentation uses `indent-width` spaces.
Closes#7643
## Test Plan
Added integration test
## Summary
This PR introduces a new `pycodestyl.max-line-length` option that allows overriding the global `line-length` option for `E501` only.
This is useful when using the formatter and `E501` together, where the formatter uses a lower limit and `E501` is only used to catch extra-long lines.
Closes#7644
## Considerations
~~Our fix infrastructure asserts in some places that the fix doesn't exceed the configured `line-width`. With this change, the question is whether it should use the `pycodestyle.max-line-width` or `line-width` option to make that decision.
I opted for the global `line-width` for now, considering that it should be the lower limit. However, this constraint isn't enforced and users not using the formatter may only specify `pycodestyle.max-line-width` because they're unaware of the global option (and it solves their need).~~
~~I'm interested to hear your thoughts on whether we should use `pycodestyle.max-line-width` or `line-width` to decide on whether to emit a fix or not.~~
Edit: The linter users `pycodestyle.max-line-width`. The `line-width` option has been removed from the `LinterSettings`
## Test Plan
Added integration test. Built the documentation and verified that the links are correct.
## Summary
First time contribute to `ruff`, so If there are low-level errors,
please forgive me. 🙇
Introduce auto fix for `E275`, this partially address #8121.
## Test Plan
Already coverd.
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Close#8123
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
New test cases
---------
Signed-off-by: harupy <hkawamura0130@gmail.com>
## Summary
This was just a bug in the parser ranges, probably since it was
initially implemented. Given `match n % 3, n % 5: ...`, the "subject"
(i.e., the tuple of two binary operators) was using the entire range of
the `match` statement.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8091.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR updates our E721 implementation and semantics to match the
updated `pycodestyle` logic, which I think is an improvement.
Specifically, we now allow `type(obj) is int` for exact type
comparisons, which were previously impossible. So now, we're largely
just linting against code like `type(obj) == int`.
This change is gated to preview mode.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7904.
## Test Plan
Updated the test fixture and ensured parity with latest Flake8.
## Summary
This PR updates our documentation for the upcoming formatter release.
Broadly, the documentation is now structured as follows:
- Overview
- Tutorial
- Installing Ruff
- The Ruff Linter
- Overview
- `ruff check`
- Rule selection
- Error suppression
- Exit codes
- The Ruff Formatter
- Overview
- `ruff format`
- Philosophy
- Configuration
- Format suppression
- Exit codes
- Black compatibility
- Known deviations
- Configuring Ruff
- pyproject.toml
- File discovery
- Configuration discovery
- CLI
- Shell autocompletion
- Preview
- Rules
- Settings
- Integrations
- `pre-commit`
- VS Code
- LSP
- PyCharm
- GitHub Actions
- FAQ
- Contributing
The major changes include:
- Removing the "Usage" section from the docs, and instead folding that
information into "Integrations" and the new Linter and Formatter
sections.
- Breaking up "Configuration" into "Configuring Ruff" (for generic
configuration), and new Linter- and Formatter-specific sections.
- Updating all example configurations to use `[tool.ruff.lint]` and
`[tool.ruff.format]`.
My suggestion is to pull and build the docs locally, and review by
reading them in the browser rather than trying to parse all the code
changes.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7235.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7647.
Adds a new `ruff version` sub-command which displays long version
information in the style of `cargo` and `rustc`. We include the number
of commits since the last release tag if its a development build, in the
style of Python's versioneer.
```
❯ ruff version
ruff 0.1.0+14 (947940e91 2023-10-18)
```
```
❯ ruff version --output-format json
{
"version": "0.1.0",
"commit_info": {
"short_commit_hash": "947940e91",
"commit_hash": "947940e91269f20f6b3f8f8c7c63f8e914680e80",
"commit_date": "2023-10-18",
"last_tag": "v0.1.0",
"commits_since_last_tag": 14
}
}%
```
```
❯ cargo version
cargo 1.72.1 (103a7ff2e 2023-08-15)
```
## Test plan
I've tested this manually locally, but want to at least add unit tests
for the message formatting. We'd also want to check the next release to
ensure the information is correct.
I checked build behavior with a detached head and branches.
## Future work
We could include rustc and cargo versions from the build, the current
Python version, and other diagnostic information for bug reports.
The `--version` and `-V` output is unchanged. However, we could update
it to display the long ruff version without the rust and cargo versions
(this is what cargo does). We'll need to be careful to ensure this does
not break downstream packages which parse our version string.
```
❯ ruff --version
ruff 0.1.0
```
The LSP should be updated to use `ruff version --output-format json`
instead of parsing `ruff --version`.
This is my first PR and I'm new at rust, so feel free to ask me to
rewrite everything if needed ;)
The rule must be called after deferred lambas have been visited because
of the last check (whether the lambda parameters are used in the body of
the function that's being called). I didn't know where to do it, so I
did what I could to be able to work on the rule itself:
- added a `ruff_linter::checkers::ast::analyze::lambda` module
- build a vec of visited lambdas in `visit_deferred_lambdas`
- call `analyze::lambda` on the vec after they all have been visited
Building that vec of visited lambdas was necessary so that bindings
could be properly resolved in the case of nested lambdas.
Note that there is an open issue in pylint for some false positives, do
we need to fix that before merging the rule?
https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/issues/8192
Also, I did not provide any fixes (yet), maybe we want do avoid merging
new rules without fixes?
## Summary
Checks for lambdas whose body is a function call on the same arguments
as the lambda itself.
### Bad
```python
df.apply(lambda x: str(x))
```
### Good
```python
df.apply(str)
```
## Test Plan
Added unit test and snapshot.
Manually compared pylint and ruff output on pylint's test cases.
## References
- [pylint
documentation](https://pylint.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_guide/messages/warning/unnecessary-lambda.html)
- [pylint
implementation](https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/blob/main/pylint/checkers/base/basic_checker.py#L521-L587)
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970
## Summary
The lint checks for number of arguments in a function *definition*, but
the message says “function *call*”
## Test Plan
See what breaks and change the tests
Given `print(*a_list_with_elements, sep="\n")`, we can't remove the
separator (unlike in `print(a, sep="\n")`), since we don't know how many
arguments were provided.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8078.
Zanie Blue
Charlie Marsh
Micha Reiser
Dhruv Manilawala
Weijie Guo
Harutaka Kawamura
gouzil
dependabot[bot]
Claudio Jolowicz
Flowrey
Steve C
Clément Schreiner
Valeriy Savchenko
Philipp A