## Summary
Add [NoneBot](https://github.com/nonebot/nonebot2) to list of projects
using ruff. NoneBot is an asynchronous multi-platform chatbot framework
written in Python.
<!--
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
closes#8217
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
This PR removes the `todo!()` around `IpyEscapeCommand` in the
formatter.
The `NeedsParentheses` trait needs to be implemented which always return
`Never`. The reason being that if an escape command is parenthesized,
then that's not parsed as an escape command. IOW, the parentheses
shouldn't be present around an escape command.
In the similar way, the `CanSkipOptionalParenthesesVisitor` will skip
this node.
## Test Plan
Updated the `unformatted.ipynb` fixture with new cells containing
IPython escape commands and the corresponding snapshot was verified.
Also, tested it out in a few open source repositories containing
notebooks (`openai/openai-cookbook`, `huggingface/notebooks`).
#### New cells in `unformatted.ipynb`
**Cell 2**
```markdown
A markdown cell
```
**Cell 3**
```python
def some_function(foo, bar):
pass
%matplotlib inline
```
**Cell 4**
```python
foo = %pwd
def some_function(foo,bar,):
foo = %pwd
print(foo
)
```
fixes: #8204
## Summary
This PR fixes the bug where if a Notebook contained IPython syntax, then
the format command would fail. This was because the correct mode was not
being used while parsing through the formatter code path.
## Test Plan
This PR isn't the only requirement for Notebook formatting to start
working with IPython escape commands. The following PR in the stack is
required as well.
## Summary
Python 3.12 added the `__buffer__()`/`__release_buffer_()` special
methods, which are incorrectly flagged as invalid dunder methods by
`PLW3201`.
## Test Plan
Added definitions to the test suite, and confirmed they failed without
the fix and are ignored after the fix was done.
## Summary
The previous configuration for `ruff` contained an unrecognized field
`magic-trailing-comma` set to "respect". As of version 0.1.2 of `ruff`,
this field was not recognized and resulted in a TOML parse error when
running the `ruff format .` command. This change removes the
`magic-trailing-comma` field and adds the recognized
`skip-magic-trailing-comma` field set to `false`.
## Test Plan
Tested locally with `ruff` 0.1.2.
## Summary
Related to https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8135.
If we're not printing a `--diff`, or a summary of `--check` changes, we
can avoid sorting the list of results. Further, when sorting, we only
need to sort a small subset of the entries, in the common case (i.e., in
general, it's much more likely that a file is formatted than not).
## Test Plan
Local benchmarks suggest a 5-10% speedup on the cached behavior:
```
❯ hyperfine --warmup 3 "./target/release/ruff format ../airflow" "./target/release/sort format ../airflow"
Benchmark 1: ./target/release/ruff format ../airflow
Time (mean ± σ): 70.3 ms ± 5.2 ms [User: 52.1 ms, System: 59.0 ms]
Range (min … max): 68.3 ms … 101.7 ms 42 runs
Warning: Statistical outliers were detected. Consider re-running this benchmark on a quiet PC without any interferences from other programs. It might help to use the '--warmup' or '--prepare' options.
Benchmark 2: ./target/release/sort format ../airflow
Time (mean ± σ): 66.0 ms ± 1.4 ms [User: 48.3 ms, System: 58.4 ms]
Range (min … max): 64.7 ms … 71.8 ms 44 runs
Warning: Statistical outliers were detected. Consider re-running this benchmark on a quiet PC without any interferences from other programs. It might help to use the '--warmup' or '--prepare' options.
Summary
'./target/release/sort format ../airflow' ran
1.07 ± 0.08 times faster than './target/release/ruff format ../airflow'
```
Per some previous discussion, the policy is not clear about what happens
if the behavior is similar but the _scope_ in which a rule is applied
changes.
## 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.
Adds a CI job which runs `ruff-lsp` tests against the current Ruff
build.
Avoids rebuilding Ruff at the cost of running _after_ the cargo tests
have finished. Might be worth the rebuild to get earlier feedback but I
don't expect it to fail often?
xref https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff-lsp/pull/286
## Test plan
Verified use of the development version by inspecting version output in
CI; supported by https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff-lsp/pull/289 and
#8034
## 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`
Charlie Marsh
Ju4tCode
T-256
Dhruv Manilawala
Piotr Dybowski
Otso Velhonoja
Micha Reiser
Ran Isenberg
Spencer Brown
Zanie Blue
Luca Mancusi
Weijie Guo
Simon Boehm
Harutaka Kawamura
gouzil
dependabot[bot]