## Summary
This PR closes#16248.
If the return type of the function isn't assignable to the one
specified, an `invalid-return-type` error occurs.
I thought it would be better to report this as a different kind of error
than the `invalid-assignment` error, so I defined this as a new error.
## Test Plan
All type inconsistencies in the test cases have been replaced with
appropriate ones.
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
This updates the `Signature` and `CallBinding` machinery to support
multiple overloads for a callable. This is currently only used for
`KnownFunction`s that we special-case in our type inference code. It
does **_not_** yet update the semantic index builder to handle
`@overload` decorators and construct a multi-signature `Overloads`
instance for real Python functions.
While I was here, I updated many of the `try_call` special cases to use
signatures (possibly overloaded ones now) and `bind_call` to check
parameter lists. We still need some of the mutator methods on
`OverloadBinding` for the special cases where we need to update return
types based on some Rust code.
## Summary
This PR adds more features to #16468.
* Adds a new error rule `invalid-type-checking-constant`, which occurs
when we try to assign a value other than `False` to a user-defined
`TYPE_CHECKING` variable (it is possible to assign `...` in a stub
file).
* Allows annotated assignment to `TYPE_CHECKING`. Only types that
`False` can be assigned to are allowed. However, the type of
`TYPE_CHECKING` will be inferred to be `Literal[True]` regardless of
what the type is specified.
## Test plan
I ran the tests with `cargo test -p red_knot_python_semantic` and
confirmed that all tests passed.
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
## Summary
This PR generalize the idea that we may want to emit diagnostics for
invalid or incompatible configuration values similar to how we already
do it for `rules`.
This PR introduces a new `Settings` struct that is similar to `Options`
but, unlike
`Options`, are fields have their default values filled in and they use a
representation optimized for reads.
The diagnostics created during loading the `Settings` are stored on the
`Project` so that we can emit them when calling `check`.
The motivation for this work is that it simplifies adding new settings.
That's also why I went ahead and added the `terminal.error-on-warning`
setting to demonstrate how new settings are added.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, new CLI test.
## Summary
Adds a JSON schema generation step for Red Knot. This PR doesn't yet add
a publishing step because it's still a bit early for that
## Test plan
I tested the schema in Zed, VS Code and PyCharm:
* PyCharm: You have to manually add a schema mapping (settings JSON
Schema Mappings)
* Zed and VS code support the inline schema specification
```toml
#:schema /Users/micha/astral/ruff/knot.schema.json
[environment]
extra-paths = []
[rules]
call-possibly-unbound-method = "error"
unknown-rule = "error"
# duplicate-base = "error"
```
```json
{
"$schema": "file:///Users/micha/astral/ruff/knot.schema.json",
"environment": {
"python-version": "3.13",
"python-platform": "linux2"
},
"rules": {
"unknown-rule": "error"
}
}
```
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a18fcd96-7cbe-4110-985b-9f1935584411
The Schema overall works but all editors have their own quirks:
* PyCharm: Hovering a name always shows the section description instead
of the description of the specific setting. But it's the same for other
settings in `pyproject.toml` files 🤷
* VS Code (JSON): Using the generated schema in a JSON file gives
exactly the experience I want
* VS Code (TOML):
* Properties with multiple possible values are repeated during
auto-completion without giving any hint how they're different. 
* The property description mushes together the description of the
property and the value, which looks sort of ridiculous. 
* Autocompletion and documentation hovering works (except the
limitations mentioned above)
* Zed:
* Very similar to VS Code with the exception that it uses the
description attribute to distinguish settings with multiple possible
values 
I don't think there's much we can do here other than hope (or help)
editors improve their auto completion. The same short comings also apply
to ruff, so this isn't something new. For now, I think this is good
enough
