## Summary
This PR improves the fix for `PYI055` to be able to handle nested and
mixed type unions.
It also marks the fix as unsafe when comments are present.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
`pytest-raises-too-broad (PT011)` should be raised when
`expected_exception` is provided as a keyword argument.
```python
def test_foo():
with pytest.raises(ValueError): # raises PT011
raise ValueError("Can't divide 1 by 0")
# This is minor but a valid pytest.raises call
with pytest.raises(expected_exception=ValueError): # doesn't raise PT011 but should
raise ValueError("Can't divide 1 by 0")
```
`pytest.raises` doc:
https://docs.pytest.org/en/8.3.x/reference/reference.html#pytest.raises
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Unit tests
Signed-off-by: harupy <hkawamura0130@gmail.com>
## Summary
- Emit diagnostics when looking up (possibly) unbound attributes
- More explicit test assertions for unbound symbols
- Review remaining call sites of `Symbol::ignore_possibly_unbound`. Most
of them are something like `builtins_symbol(self.db,
"Ellipsis").ignore_possibly_unbound().unwrap_or(Type::Unknown)` which
look okay to me, unless we want to emit additional diagnostics. There is
one additional case in enum literal handling, which has a TODO comment
anyway.
part of #14022
## Test Plan
New MD tests for (possibly) unbound attributes.
## Summary
This adds a new diagnostic when possibly unbound symbols are imported.
The `TODO` comment had a question mark, do I'm not sure if this is
really something that we want.
This does not touch the un*declared* case, yet.
relates to: #14022
## Test Plan
Updated already existing tests with new diagnostics
## Summary
Apart from one small functional change, this is mostly a refactoring of
the `Symbol` API:
- Rename `as_type` to the more explicit `ignore_possibly_unbound`, no
functional change
- Remove `unwrap_or_unknown` in favor of the more explicit
`.ignore_possibly_unbound().unwrap_or(Type::Unknown)`, no functional
change
- Consistently call it "possibly unbound" (not "may be unbound")
- Rename `replace_unbound_with` to `or_fall_back_to` and properly handle
boundness of the fall back. This is the only functional change (did not
have any impact on existing tests).
relates to: #14022
## Test Plan
New unit tests for `Symbol::or_fall_back_to`
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
<!--
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? -->
Related to #970. Implement [`shallow-copy-environ /
W1507`](https://pylint.readthedocs.io/en/stable/user_guide/messages/warning/shallow-copy-environ.html).
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Unit test
---------
Co-authored-by: Simon Brugman <sbrugman@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
The implicit namespace package rule currently fails to detect cases like
the following:
```text
foo/
├── __init__.py
└── bar/
└── baz/
└── __init__.py
```
The problem is that we detect a root at `foo`, and then an independent
root at `baz`. We _would_ detect that `bar` is an implicit namespace
package, but it doesn't contain any files! So we never check it, and
have no place to raise the diagnostic.
This PR adds detection for these kinds of nested packages, and augments
the `INP` rule to flag the `__init__.py` file above with a specialized
message. As a side effect, I've introduced a dedicated `PackageRoot`
struct which we can pass around in lieu of Yet Another `Path`.
For now, I'm only enabling this in preview (and the approach doesn't
affect any other rules). It's a bug fix, but it may end up expanding the
rule.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/13519.
## Summary
It's only safe to enforce the `x in "1234567890"` case if `x` is exactly
one character, since the set on the right has been reordered as compared
to `string.digits`. We can't know if `x` is exactly one character unless
it's a literal. And if it's a literal, well, it's kind of silly code in
the first place?
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/13802.
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fix `await-outside-async` to allow `await` at the top-level scope of a
notebook.
```python
# foo.ipynb
await asyncio.sleep(1) # should be allowed
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
A unit test
## Summary
Resolves#13833.
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run` and `cargo insta test`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
This PR accounts for further subtleties in `Decimal` parsing:
- Strings which are empty modulo underscores and surrounding whitespace
are skipped
- `Decimal("-0")` is skipped
- `Decimal("{integer literal that is longer than 640 digits}")` are
skipped (see linked issue for explanation)
NB: The snapshot did not need to be updated since the new test cases are
"Ok" instances and added below the diff.
Closes#14204
## Summary
Create definitions and infer types for PEP 695 type variables.
This just gives us the type of the type variable itself (the type of `T`
as a runtime object in the body of `def f[T](): ...`), with special
handling for its attributes `__name__`, `__bound__`, `__constraints__`,
and `__default__`. Mostly the support for these attributes exists
because it is easy to implement and allows testing that we are
internally representing the typevar correctly.
This PR doesn't yet have support for interpreting a typevar as a type
annotation, which is of course the primary use of a typevar. But the
information we store in the typevar's type in this PR gives us
everything we need to handle it correctly in a future PR when the
typevar appears in an annotation.
## Test Plan
Added mdtest.
## Summary
`Ty::BuiltinClassLiteral(…)` is a sub~~class~~type of
`Ty::BuiltinInstance("type")`, so it can't be disjoint from it.
## Test Plan
New `is_not_disjoint_from` test case
## Summary
Fix `Type::is_assignable_to` for union types on the left hand side (of
`.is_assignable_to`; or the right hand side of the `… = …` assignment):
`Literal[1, 2]` should be assignable to `int`.
## Test Plan
New unit tests that were previously failing.
## Summary
Minor fix to `Type::is_subtype_of` to make sure that Boolean literals
are subtypes of `int`, to match runtime semantics.
Found this while doing some property-testing experiments [1].
[1] https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/14178
## Test Plan
New unit test.
## Summary
Fixes#14114. I don't think I can really describe the problems with our
current architecture (and therefore the motivations for this PR) any
better than @carljm did in that issue, so I'll just copy it out here!
---
We currently represent "known instances" (e.g. special forms like
`typing.Literal`, which are an instance of `typing._SpecialForm`, but
need to be handled differently from other instances of
`typing._SpecialForm`) as an `InstanceType` with a `known` field that is
`Some(...)`.
This makes it easy to handle a known instance as if it were a regular
instance type (by ignoring the `known` field), and in some cases (e.g.
`Type::member`) that is correct and convenient. But in other cases (e.g.
`Type::is_equivalent_to`) it is not correct, and we currently have a bug
that we would consider the known-instance type of `typing.Literal` as
equivalent to the general instance type for `typing._SpecialForm`, and
we would fail to consider it a singleton type or a single-valued type
(even though it is both.)
An instance type with `known.is_some()` is semantically quite different
from an instance type with `known.is_none()`. The former is a singleton
type that represents exactly one runtime object; the latter is an open
type that represents many runtime objects, including instances of
unknown subclasses. It is too error-prone to represent these
very-different types as a single `Type` variant. We should instead
introduce a dedicated `Type::KnownInstance` variant and force ourselves
to handle these explicitly in all `Type` variant matches.
## Possible followups
There is still a little bit of awkwardness in our current design in some
places, in that we first infer the symbol `typing.Literal` as a
`_SpecialForm` instance, and then later convert that instance-type into
a known-instance-type. We could also use this `KnownInstanceType` enum
to account for other special runtime symbols such as `builtins.Ellipsis`
or `builtins.NotImplemented`.
I think these might be worth pursuing, but I didn't do them here as they
didn't seem essential right now, and I wanted to keep the diff
relatively minimal.
## Test Plan
`cargo test -p red_knot_python_semantic`. New unit tests added for
`Type::is_subtype_of`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
Simon Brugman
Harutaka Kawamura
David Peter
InSync
David Salvisberg
Alex Waygood
w0nder1ng
Dhruv Manilawala
Charlie Marsh
Randolf Scholz
Carl Meyer
Dylan
Michal Čihař