## Summary
Implements
[FURB136](https://github.com/dosisod/refurb/blob/master/docs/checks.md#furb136-use-min-max)
that checks for `if` expressions that can be replaced with `min()` or
`max()` calls. See issue #1348 for more information.
This implementation diverges from Refurb's original implementation by
retaining the order of equal values. For example, Refurb suggest that
the following expressions:
```python
highest_score1 = score1 if score1 > score2 else score2
highest_score2 = score1 if score1 >= score2 else score2
```
should be to rewritten as:
```python
highest_score1 = max(score1, score2)
highest_score2 = max(score1, score2)
```
whereas this implementation provides more correct alternatives:
```python
highest_score1 = max(score2, score1)
highest_score2 = max(score1, score2)
```
## Test Plan
Unit test checks all eight possibilities.
## Summary
This adds a ``no-sections`` option for isort in the linter, similar to
the ``no_sections`` option that exists in upstream isort
(https://pycqa.github.io/isort/docs/configuration/options.html#no-sections)
This option puts all imports except for ``__future__`` into the same
section, and is mostly used by monorepos.
I've taken a bit of a leap in assuming that ruff wants to support the
exact same option; more than happy to refactor if you'd prefer a
different way of setting this up.
Fixes#8653
## Test Plan
I've added a test and have run it on a large Python codebase that uses
isort with --no-sections. The option is disabled by default.
When using the autofixer for `Q000` it does not remove the backslashes
from quotes that no longer need escaping.
This new rule checks for such backslashes (regardless whether they come
from the autofixer or not) and can remove them.
fixes#8617
## Summary
This fixes#2606 by moving where we apply the convention ignores --
instead of applying that at the very end, e track, we now track which
rules have been specifically enabled (via `Specificity::Rule`). If they
have, then we do *not* apply the docstring overrides at the end.
## Test Plan
Added unit tests to `ruff_workspace` and an integration test to
`ruff_cli`
## Summary
This brings ruff's behavior in line with what `pep8-naming` already does
and thus closes#8397.
I had initially implemented this to look at the last segment of a dotted
path only when the entry in the `*-decorators` setting started with a
`.`, but in the end I thought it's better to remain consistent w/
`pep8-naming` and doing a match against the last segment of the
decorator name in any case.
If you prefer to diverge from this in favor of less ambiguity in the
configuration let me know and I'll change it so you would need to put
e.g. `.expression` in the `classmethod-decorators` list.
## Test Plan
Tested against the file in the issue linked below, plus the new testcase
added in this PR.
## Summary
Implement
[`no-is-type-none`](https://github.com/dosisod/refurb/blob/master/refurb/checks/builtin/no_is_type_none.py)
as `type-none-comparison` (`FURB169`).
Auto-fixes comparisons that use `type` to compare the type of an object
to `type(None)` to a `None` identity check. For example,
```python
type(foo) is type(None)
```
becomes
```python
foo is None
```
Related to #1348.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Adds `TRIO105` from the [flake8-trio
plugin](https://github.com/Zac-HD/flake8-trio). The `MethodName` logic
mirrors that of `TRIO100` to stay consistent within the plugin.
It is at 95% parity with the exception of upstream also checking for a
slightly more complex scenario where a call to `start()` on a
`trio.Nursery` context should also be immediately awaited. Upstream
plugin appears to just check for anything named `nursery` judging from
[the relevant issue](https://github.com/Zac-HD/flake8-trio/issues/56).
Unsure if we want to do so something similar or, alternatively, if there
is some capability in ruff to check for calls made on this context some
other way
## Test Plan
Added a new fixture, based on [the one from upstream
plugin](https://github.com/Zac-HD/flake8-trio/blob/main/tests/eval_files/trio105.py)
## Issue link
Refers: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8451
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Hi! Currently NumPy Python API is undergoing a cleanup process that will
be delivered in NumPy 2.0 (release is planned for the end of the year).
Most changes are rather simple (renaming, removing or moving a member of
the main namespace to a new place), and they could be flagged/fixed by
an additional ruff rule for numpy (e.g. changing occurrences of
`np.float_` to `np.float64`).
Would you accept such rule?
I named it `NPY201` in the existing group, so people will receive a
heads-up for changes arriving in 2.0 before actually migrating to it.
~~This is still a draft PR.~~ I'm not an expert in rust so if any part
of code can be done better please share!
NumPy 2.0 migration guide:
https://numpy.org/devdocs/numpy_2_0_migration_guide.html
NEP 52: https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0052-python-api-cleanup.html
NumPy cleanup tracking issue:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/23999
## Test Plan
A unit test is provided that checks all rule's fix cases.
## Summary
Implements pylint C0415 (import-outside-toplevel) — imports should be at
the top level of a file.
The great debate I had on this implementation is whether "top-level" is
one word or two (`toplevel` or `top_level`). I opted for 2 because that
seemed to be how it is used in the codebase but the rule string itself
uses one-word "toplevel." 🤷 I'd be happy to change it as desired.
I suppose this could be auto-fixed by moving the import to the
top-level, but it seems likely that the author's intent was to actually
import this dynamically, so I view the main point of this rule is to
force some sort of explanation, and auto-fixing might be annoying.
For reference, this is what "pylint" reports:
```
> pylint crates/ruff/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/import_outside_top_level.py
************* Module import_outside_top_level
...
crates/ruff/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/import_outside_top_level.py:4:4: C0415: Import outside toplevel (string) (import-outside-toplevel)
```
ruff would now report:
```
import_outside_top_level.py:4:5: PLC0415 `import` should be used only at the top level of a file
|
3 | def import_outside_top_level():
4 | import string # [import-outside-toplevel]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PLC0415
|
```
Contributes to https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970.
## Test Plan
Snapshot test.
## Summary
Remove wrong note on `tool.ruff.format` `exclude` option from
documentation which is referencing `extend-exclude` even if it's not
relevant for the formatter options (`exclude` is additive). See #8301
## Test Plan
N/A (Docs change)
## Summary
Avoid warning about incompatible rules except if their configuration
directly conflicts with the formatter. This should reduce the noise and
potentially the need for https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8175
and https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8185
I also extended the rule and option documentation to mention any
potential formatter incompatibilities or whether they're redundant when
using the formatter.
* `LineTooLong`: This is a use case we explicitly want to support. Don't
warn about it
* `TabIndentation`, `IndentWithSpaces`: Only warn if
`indent-style="tab"`
* `IndentationWithInvalidMultiple`,
`IndentationWithInvalidMultipleComment`: Only warn if `indent-width !=
4`
* `OverIndented`: Don't warn, but mention that the rule is redundant
* `BadQuotesInlineString`: Warn if quote setting is different from
`format.quote-style`
* `BadQuotesMultilineString`, `BadQuotesDocstring`: Warn if `quote !=
"double"`
## Test Plan
I added a new integration test for the default configuration with `ALL`.
`ruff format` now only shows two incompatible rules, which feels more
reasonable.
## 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.
This is my first PR and I'm new at rust, so feel free to ask me to
rewrite everything if needed ;)
The rule must be called after deferred lambas have been visited because
of the last check (whether the lambda parameters are used in the body of
the function that's being called). I didn't know where to do it, so I
did what I could to be able to work on the rule itself:
- added a `ruff_linter::checkers::ast::analyze::lambda` module
- build a vec of visited lambdas in `visit_deferred_lambdas`
- call `analyze::lambda` on the vec after they all have been visited
Building that vec of visited lambdas was necessary so that bindings
could be properly resolved in the case of nested lambdas.
Note that there is an open issue in pylint for some false positives, do
we need to fix that before merging the rule?
https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/issues/8192
Also, I did not provide any fixes (yet), maybe we want do avoid merging
new rules without fixes?
## Summary
Checks for lambdas whose body is a function call on the same arguments
as the lambda itself.
### Bad
```python
df.apply(lambda x: str(x))
```
### Good
```python
df.apply(str)
```
## Test Plan
Added unit test and snapshot.
Manually compared pylint and ruff output on pylint's test cases.
## References
- [pylint
documentation](https://pylint.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_guide/messages/warning/unnecessary-lambda.html)
- [pylint
implementation](https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/blob/main/pylint/checkers/base/basic_checker.py#L521-L587)
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970
## Summary
Fix a typo in the docs for quote style.
> a = "a string without any quotes"
> b = "It's monday morning"
> Ruff will change a to use single quotes when using quote-style =
"single". However, a will be unchanged, as converting to single quotes
would require the inner ' to be escaped, which leads to less readable
code: 'It\'s monday morning'.
It should read "However, **b** will be unchanged".
## Test Plan
N/A.
## Summary
### What it does
This rule triggers an error when a bare raise statement is not in an
except or finally block.
### Why is this bad?
If raise statement is not in an except or finally block, there is no
active exception to
re-raise, so it will fail with a `RuntimeError` exception.
### Example
```python
def validate_positive(x):
if x <= 0:
raise
```
Use instead:
```python
def validate_positive(x):
if x <= 0:
raise ValueError(f"{x} is not positive")
```
## Test Plan
Added unit test and snapshot.
Manually compared ruff and pylint outputs on pylint's tests.
## References
- [pylint
documentation](https://pylint.pycqa.org/en/stable/user_guide/messages/error/misplaced-bare-raise.html)
- [pylint
implementation](https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/blob/main/pylint/checkers/exceptions.py#L339)
See the provided breaking changes note for details.
Removes support for the deprecated `--format`option in the `ruff check`
CLI, `format` inference as `output-format` in the configuration file,
and the `RUFF_FORMAT` environment variable.
The error message for use of `format` in the configuration file could be
better, but would require some awkward serde wrappers and it seems hard
to present the correct schema to the user still.
