## Summary
As suggested by @MichaReiser in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/12886#pullrequestreview-2237679793,
this adds an exemption to `RUF027` for `fastAPI` paths, which require
template strings rather than eagerly evaluated f-strings.
## Test Plan
I added a fixture that causes Ruff to emit a false-positive error on
`main` but no longer does with this PR.
## Summary
This PR is a pure refactor to simplify some of the logic for `RUF027`.
This will make it easier to file some followup PRs to help reduce the
false positives from this rule. I'm separating the refactor out into a
separate PR so it's easier to review, and so I can double-check from the
ecosystem report that this doesn't have any user-facing impact.
## Test Plan
`cargo test -p ruff_linter --lib`
This adds the `fast-api-unused-path-parameter` lint rule, as described
in #12632.
I'm still pretty new to rust, so the code can probably be improved, feel
free to tell me if there's any changes i should make.
Also, i needed to add the `add_parameter` edit function, not sure if it
was in the scope of the PR or if i should've made another one.
List and set comprehensions using `async for` cannot be replaced with
underlying generators; this PR modifies C419 to skip such
comprehensions.
Closes#12891.
## Summary
This PR fixes a bug in the semantic model where it would evaluate the
default parameter value in the type parameter scope. For example,
```py
def foo[T1: int](a = T1):
pass
```
Here, the `T1` in `a = T1` is undefined but Ruff doesn't flag it
(https://play.ruff.rs/ba2f7c2f-4da6-417e-aa2a-104aa63e6d5e).
The fix here is to evaluate the default parameter value in the
_enclosing_ scope instead.
## Test Plan
Add a test case which includes the above code under `F821`
(`undefined-name`) and validate the snapshot.
## Summary
See #12703. This only addresses the first bullet point, adding a space
after the comma in the suggested fix from list/tuple to string.
## Test Plan
Updated the snapshots and compared.
In most cases we should suggest a ternary operator, but there are three
edge cases where a binary operator is more appropriate.
Given an if-else block of the form
```python
if test:
target_var = body_value
else:
target_var = else_value
```
This PR updates the check for SIM108 to the following:
- If `test == body_value` and preview enabled, suggest to replace with
`target_var = test or else_value`
- If `test == not body_value` and preview enabled, suggest to replace
with `target_var = body_value and else_value`
- If `not test == body_value` and preview enabled, suggest to replace
with `target_var = body_value and else_value`
- Otherwise, suggest to replace with `target_var = body_value if test
else else_value`
Closes#12189.
