Fixes#8721
## Summary
This implements the rule proposed in #8721, as RUF021. `and` always
binds more tightly than `or` when chaining the two together.
(This should definitely be autofixable, but I'm leaving that to a
followup PR for now.)
## Test Plan
`cargo test` / `cargo insta review`
## Summary
This PR implements Y058 from flake8-pyi -- this is a new flake8-pyi rule
that was released as part of `flake8-pyi 23.11.0`. I've followed the
Python implementation as closely as possible (see
858c0918a8),
except that for the Ruff version, the rule also applies to `.py` files
as well as for `.pyi` files. (For `.py` files, we only emit the
diagnostic in very specific situations, however, as there's a much
higher likelihood of emitting false positives when applying this rule to
a `.py` file.)
## Test Plan
`cargo test`/`cargo insta review`
## Summary
Part of #970.
This adds Pylint's [R0244
empty_comment](https://pylint.pycqa.org/en/latest/user_guide/messages/refactor/empty-comment.html)
lint as well as an always-safe fix.
## Test Plan
The included snapshot verifies the following:
- A line containing only a non-empty comment is not changed
- A line containing leading whitespace before a non-empty comment is not
changed
- A line containing only an empty comment has its content deleted
- A line containing only leading whitespace before an empty comment has
its content deleted
- A line containing only leading and trailing whitespace on an empty
comment has its content deleted
- A line containing trailing whitespace after a non-empty comment is not
changed
- A line containing only a single newline character (i.e. a blank line)
is not changed
- A line containing code followed by a non-empty comment is not changed
- A line containing code followed by an empty comment has its content
deleted after the last non-whitespace character
- Lines containing code and no comments are not changed
- Empty comment lines within block comments are ignored
- Empty comments within triple-quoted sections are ignored
## Comparison to Pylint
Running Ruff and Pylint 3.0.3 with Python 3.12.0 against the
`empty_comment.py` file added in this PR, we see the following:
* Identical behavior:
* empty_comment.py:3:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* empty_comment.py:4:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* empty_comment.py:5:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* empty_comment.py:18:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* Differing behavior:
* Pylint doesn't ignore empty comments in block comments commonly used
for visual spacing; I decided these were fine in this implementation
since many projects use these and likely do not want them removed.
* empty_comment.py:28:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* Pylint detects "empty comments" within the triple-quoted section at
the bottom of the file, which is arguably a bug in the Pylint
implementation since these are not truly comments. These are ignored by
this implementation.
* empty_comment.py:37:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* empty_comment.py:38:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
* empty_comment.py:39:0: R2044: Line with empty comment (empty-comment)
## Summary
Adds a rule to detect unions that include `typing.NoReturn` or
`typing.Never`. In such cases, the use of the bottom type is redundant.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9113.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
A common mistake is to add quotes around one member in an `X | Y`-style
type union, as in:
```python
contract_versions_list: list[ContractVersion] | 'QuerySet[ContractVersion]' | None = None
```
However, doing so will lead to a runtime error if the annotation is
runtime-evaluated. This PR lints against such patterns.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9139.
<!--
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
Adds the Pylint rule E1132 to check for repeated keyword arguments in a
function call.
## Test Plan
Tested via the included unit tests and manual spot checking.
## 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.
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 PR extends `unnecessary-pass` (`PIE790`) to flag unnecessary
ellipsis expressions in addition to `pass` statements. A `pass` is
equivalent to a standalone `...`, so it feels correct to me that a
single rule should cover both cases.
When we look to v0.2.0, we should also consider deprecating `PYI013`,
which flags ellipses only for classes.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8602.
## Summary
PIE807 will rewrite `lambda: []` to `list` -- AFAICT though, the same
rationale also applies to dicts, so I've modified the code to also
rewrite `lambda: {}` to `dict`.
Two things I'm not sure about:
* Should this go to a new rule? This no longer actually matches the
behavior of flake8-pie, and while I think thematically it makes sense to
be part of the same rule, we could make it a standalone rule (but if so,
where should I put it and what error code should I use)?
* If we want a single rule, are there backwards compatibility concerns
with the rule name change (from `reimplemented_list_builtin` to
`reimplemented_container_builtin`?
## Test Plan
Added snapshot tests of the functionality.
## 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
Implement
[`no-isinstance-type-none`](https://github.com/dosisod/refurb/blob/master/refurb/checks/builtin/no_isinstance_type_none.py)
as `isinstance-type-none` (`FURB168`).
Auto-fixes calls to `isinstance` to check if an object is `None` to a
`None` identity check. For example,
```python
isinstance(foo, type(None))
```
becomes
```python
foo is None
```
Related to #1348.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
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
