This commit greatly simplifies the implementation of the CLI,
as well as the user expierence (since --help no longer lists all
options even though many of them are in fact incompatible).
To preserve backwards-compatability as much as possible aliases have
been added for the new subcommands, so for example the following two
commands are equivalent:
ruff explain E402 --format json
ruff --explain E402 --format json
However for this to work the legacy-format double-dash command has to
come first, i.e. the following no longer works:
ruff --format json --explain E402
Since ruff previously had an implicitly default subcommand,
this is preserved for backwards compatibility, i.e. the following two
commands are equivalent:
ruff .
ruff check .
Previously ruff didn't complain about several argument combinations that
should have never been allowed, e.g:
ruff --explain RUF001 --line-length 33
previously worked but now rightfully fails since the explain command
doesn't support a `--line-length` option.
To enable ruff_dev to automatically generate the rule Markdown tables in
the README the ruff library contained the following function:
Linter::codes() -> Vec<RuleSelector>
which was slightly changed to `fn prefixes(&self) -> Prefixes` in
9dc66b5a65 to enable ruff_dev to split
up the Markdown tables for linters that have multiple prefixes
(pycodestyle has E & W, Pylint has PLC, PLE, PLR & PLW).
The definition of this method was however largely redundant with the
#[prefix] macro attributes in the Linter enum, which are used to
derive the Linter::parse_code function, used by the --explain command.
This commit removes the redundant Linter::prefixes by introducing a
same-named method with a different signature to the RuleNamespace trait:
fn prefixes(&self) -> &'static [&'static str];
As well as implementing IntoIterator<Rule> for &Linter. We extend the
extisting RuleNamespace proc macro to automatically derive both
implementations from the Linter enum definition.
To support the previously mentioned Markdown table splitting we
introduce a very simple hand-written method to the Linter impl:
fn categories(&self) -> Option<&'static [LinterCategory]>;
"origin" was accurate since ruff rules are currently always modeled
after one origin (except the Ruff-specific rules).
Since we however want to introduce a many-to-many mapping between codes
and rules, the term "origin" no longer makes much sense. Rules usually
don't have multiple origins but one linter implements a rule first and
then others implement it later (often inspired from another linter).
But we don't actually care much about where a rule originates from when
mapping multiple rule codes to one rule implementation, so renaming
RuleOrigin to Linter is less confusing with the many-to-many system.
This commit fixes a bug accidentally introduced in
6cf770a692,
which resulted every `ruff --explain <code>` invocation to fail with:
thread 'main' panicked at 'Mismatch between definition and access of `explain`.
Could not downcast to ruff::registry::Rule, need to downcast to &ruff::registry::Rule',
ruff_cli/src/cli.rs:184:18
We also add an integration test for --explain to prevent such bugs from
going by unnoticed in the future.
This makes it easier to see which rules you're enabling when selecting
one of the pylint codes (like `PLC`). This also makes it clearer what
those abbreviations stand for. When I first saw the pylint section, I
was very confused by that, so other might be as well.
See it rendered here:
https://github.com/thomkeh/ruff/blob/patch-1/README.md#pylint-plc-ple-plr-plw
This lets you test the ruff linters or use the ruff library
without having to compile the ~100 additional dependencies
that are needed by the CLI.
Because we set the following in the [workspace] section of Cargo.toml:
default-members = [".", "ruff_cli"]
`cargo run` still runs the CLI and `cargo test` still tests
the code in src/ as well as the code in the new ruff_cli crate.
(But you can now also run `cargo test -p ruff` to only test the linters.)
