## Summary
Updates the fix title for RUF102 to either specify which rule code to
remove, or clarify
that the entire suppression comment should be removed.
## Test Plan
Updated test snapshots.
## Summary
This PR fixes `super()` handling when the first parameter (`self` or
`cls`) is annotated with a TypeVar, like `Self`.
Previously, `super()` would incorrectly resolve TypeVars to their bounds
before creating the `BoundSuperType`. So if you had `self: Self` where
`Self` is bounded by `Parent`, we'd process `Parent` as a
`NominalInstance` and end up with `SuperOwnerKind::Instance(Parent)`.
As a result:
```python
class Parent:
@classmethod
def create(cls) -> Self:
return cls()
class Child(Parent):
@classmethod
def create(cls) -> Self:
return super().create() # Error: Argument type `Self@create` does not satisfy upper bound `Parent`
```
We now track two additional variants on `SuperOwnerKind` for TypeVar
owners:
- `InstanceTypeVar`: for instance methods where self is a TypeVar (e.g.,
`self: Self`).
- `ClassTypeVar`: for classmethods where `cls` is a `TypeVar` wrapped in
`type[...]` (e.g., `cls: type[Self]`).
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2122.
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
We enabled [`CompletionListisIncomplete`] in our LSP server a while back
in order to have more of a say in how we rank and filter completions.
When it isn't set, the client tends to ask for completions less
frequently and will instead do its own filtering.
But... we did not enable it for the playground. Which I guess didn't
result in anything noticeably bad until we started limiting completions
to 1,000 suggestions. This meant that if the _initial_ completion
response didn't include the ultimate desired answer, then it would never
show up in the results until the client requested completions again.
This in turn led to some very poor completions in some cases.
This all gets fixed by simply enabling `isIncomplete` for Monaco.
Fixesastral-sh/ty#2340
[`CompletionList::isIncomplete`](https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifications/lsp/3.17/specification/#completionList)
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2363
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2013
And several other bugs with the same root cause. And makes any similar
bugs impossible by construction.
Previously we distinguished "no annotation" (Rust `None`) from
"explicitly annotated with something of type `Unknown`" (which is not an
error, and results in the annotation being of Rust type
`Some(Type::DynamicType(Unknown))`), even though semantically these
should be treated the same.
This was a bit of a bug magnet, because it was easy to forget to make
this `None` -> `Unknown` translation everywhere we needed to. And in
fact we did fail to do it in the case of materializing a callable,
leading to a top-materialized callable still having (rust) `None` return
type, which should have instead materialized to `object`.
This also fixes several other bugs related to not handling un-annotated
return types correctly:
1. We previously considered the return type of an unannotated `async
def` to be `Unknown`, where it should be `CoroutineType[Any, Any,
Unknown]`.
2. We previously failed to infer a ParamSpec if the return type of the
callable we are inferring against was not annotated.
3. We previously wrongly returned `Unknown` from `some_dict.get("key",
None)` if the value type of `some_dict` included a callable type with
un-annotated return type.
We now make signature return types and annotated parameter types
required, and we eagerly insert `Unknown` if there's no annotation. Most
of the diff is just a bunch of mechanical code changes where we
construct these types, and simplifications where we use them.
One exception is type display: when a callable type has un-annotated
parameters, we want to display them as un-annotated, but if it has a
parameter explicitly annotated with something of `Unknown` type, we want
to display that parameter as `x: Unknown` (it would be confusing if it
looked like your annotation just disappeared entirely).
Fortunately, we already have a mechanism in place for handling this: the
`inferred_annotation` flag, which suppresses display of an annotation.
Previously we used it only for `self` and `cls` parameters with an
inferred annotated type -- but we now also set it for any un-annotated
parameter, for which we infer `Unknown` type.
We also need to normalize `inferred_annotation`, since it's display-only
and shouldn't impact type equivalence. (This is technically a
previously-existing bug, it just never came up when it only affected
self types -- now it comes up because we have tests asserting that `def
f(x)` and `def g(x: Unknown)` are equivalent.)
## Test Plan
Added mdtests.
## 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.
