## Summary
By using `set`, we were setting the bracket flag to `false` if another
operator was visited.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8379.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
We were considering the `{` within an f-string to be a left brace, which
caused the "space-after-colon" rule to trigger incorrectly.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8299.
## 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>
## Summary
This rule is now unsafe if we can't verify that the `obj` in `raise
obj()` is a class or builtin. (If we verify that it's a function, we
don't raise at all, as before.)
See the documentation change for motivation behind the unsafe edit.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8228.
## 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.
<!--
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 PR updates our E721 implementation and semantics to match the
updated `pycodestyle` logic, which I think is an improvement.
Specifically, we now allow `type(obj) is int` for exact type
comparisons, which were previously impossible. So now, we're largely
just linting against code like `type(obj) == int`.
This change is gated to preview mode.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7904.
## Test Plan
Updated the test fixture and ensured parity with latest Flake8.
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
Given `print(*a_list_with_elements, sep="\n")`, we can't remove the
separator (unlike in `print(a, sep="\n")`), since we don't know how many
arguments were provided.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8078.
<!--
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
In https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/7968, I introduced a
regression whereby we started to treat imports used _only_ in type
annotation bounds (with `__future__` annotations) as unused.
The root of the issue is that I started using `visit_annotation` for
these bounds. So we'd queue up the bound in the list of deferred type
parameters, then when visiting, we'd further queue it up in the list of
deferred type annotations... Which we'd then never visit, since deferred
type annotations are visited _before_ deferred type parameters.
Anyway, the better solution here is to use a dedicated flag for these,
since they have slightly different behavior than type annotations.
I've also fixed what I _think_ is a bug whereby we previously failed to
resolve `Callable` in:
```python
type RecordCallback[R: Record] = Callable[[R], None]
from collections.abc import Callable
```
IIUC, the values in type aliases should be evaluated lazily, like type
parameters.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8017.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## 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)
## Summary
Given `type RecordOrThings = Record | int | str`, the right-hand side
won't be evaluated at runtime. Same goes for `Record` in `type
RecordCallback[R: Record] = Callable[[R], None]`. This PR modifies the
visitation logic to treat them as typing-only.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7966.
## Summary
This PR fixes the bug where the rule `E251` was being triggered on a equal token
inside a f-string which was used in the context of debug expressions.
For example, the following was being flagged before the fix:
```python
print(f"{foo = }")
```
But, now it is not. This leads to false negatives such as:
```python
print(f"{foo(a = 1)}")
```
One solution would be to know if the opened parentheses was inside a f-string or
not. If it was then we can continue flagging until it's closed. If not, then we
should not flag it.
## Test Plan
Add new test cases and check that they don't raise any false positives.
fixes: #7882
## Summary
`foo(**{})` was an overlooked edge case for `PIE804` which introduced a
crash within the Fix, introduced in #7884.
I've made it so that `foo(**{})` turns into `foo()` when applied with
`--fix`, but is that desired/expected? 🤔 Should we just ignore instead?
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Given:
```python
baz: Annotated[
str,
[qux for qux in foo],
]
```
We treat `baz` as `BindingKind::Annotation`, to ensure that references
to `baz` are marked as unbound. However, we were _also_ treating `qux`
as `BindingKind::Annotation`, which meant that the load in the
comprehension _also_ errored.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7879.
