## Summary
I always found it odd that we had to pass this in, since it's really
higher-level context for the error. The awkwardness is further evidenced
by the fact that we pass in fake values everywhere (even outside of
tests). The source path isn't actually used to display the error; it's
only accessed elsewhere to _re-display_ the error in certain cases. This
PR modifies to instead pass the path directly in those cases.
Rebase of #6365 authored by @davidszotten.
## Summary
This PR updates the AST structure for an f-string elements.
The main **motivation** behind this change is to have a dedicated node
for the string part of an f-string. Previously, the existing
`ExprStringLiteral` node was used for this purpose which isn't exactly
correct. The `ExprStringLiteral` node should include the quotes as well
in the range but the f-string literal element doesn't include the quote
as it's a specific part within an f-string. For example,
```python
f"foo {x}"
# ^^^^
# This is the literal part of an f-string
```
The introduction of `FStringElement` enum is helpful which represent
either the literal part or the expression part of an f-string.
### Rule Updates
This means that there'll be two nodes representing a string depending on
the context. One for a normal string literal while the other is a string
literal within an f-string. The AST checker is updated to accommodate
this change. The rules which work on string literal are updated to check
on the literal part of f-string as well.
#### Notes
1. The `Expr::is_literal_expr` method would check for
`ExprStringLiteral` and return true if so. But now that we don't
represent the literal part of an f-string using that node, this improves
the method's behavior and confines to the actual expression. We do have
the `FStringElement::is_literal` method.
2. We avoid checking if we're in a f-string context before adding to
`string_type_definitions` because the f-string literal is now a
dedicated node and not part of `Expr`.
3. Annotations cannot use f-string so we avoid changing any rules which
work on annotation and checks for `ExprStringLiteral`.
## Test Plan
- All references of `Expr::StringLiteral` were checked to see if any of
the rules require updating to account for the f-string literal element
node.
- New test cases are added for rules which check against the literal
part of an f-string.
- Check the ecosystem results and ensure it remains unchanged.
## Performance
There's a performance penalty in the parser. The reason for this remains
unknown as it seems that the generated assembly code is now different
for the `__reduce154` function. The reduce function body is just popping
the `ParenthesizedExpr` on top of the stack and pushing it with the new
location.
- The size of `FStringElement` enum is the same as `Expr` which is what
it replaces in `FString::format_spec`
- The size of `FStringExpressionElement` is the same as
`ExprFormattedValue` which is what it replaces
I tried reducing the `Expr` enum from 80 bytes to 72 bytes but it hardly
resulted in any performance gain. The difference can be seen here:
- Original profile: https://share.firefox.dev/3Taa7ES
- Profile after boxing some node fields:
https://share.firefox.dev/3GsNXpD
### Backtracking
I tried backtracking the changes to see if any of the isolated change
produced this regression. The problem here is that the overall change is
so small that there's only a single checkpoint where I can backtrack and
that checkpoint results in the same regression. This checkpoint is to
revert using `Expr` to the `FString::format_spec` field. After this
point, the change would revert back to the original implementation.
## Review process
The review process is similar to #7927. The first set of commits update
the node structure, parser, and related AST files. Then, further commits
update the linter and formatter part to account for the AST change.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Szotten <davidszotten@gmail.com>
Update to [Rust
1.74](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2023/11/16/Rust-1.74.0.html) and use
the new clippy lints table.
The update itself introduced a new clippy lint about superfluous hashes
in raw strings, which got removed.
I moved our lint config from `rustflags` to the newly stabilized
[workspace.lints](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/cargo/reference/workspaces.html#the-lints-table).
One consequence is that we have to `unsafe_code = "warn"` instead of
"forbid" because the latter now actually bans unsafe code:
```
error[E0453]: allow(unsafe_code) incompatible with previous forbid
--> crates/ruff_source_file/src/newlines.rs:62:17
|
62 | #[allow(unsafe_code)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ overruled by previous forbid
|
= note: `forbid` lint level was set on command line
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR renames a few AST nodes for clarity:
- `Arguments` is now `Parameters`
- `Arg` is now `Parameter`
- `ArgWithDefault` is now `ParameterWithDefault`
For now, the attribute names that reference `Parameters` directly are
changed (e.g., on `StmtFunctionDef`), but the attributes on `Parameters`
itself are not (e.g., `vararg`). We may revisit that decision in the
future.
For context, the AST node formerly known as `Arguments` is used in
function definitions. Formally (outside of the Python context),
"arguments" typically refers to "the values passed to a function", while
"parameters" typically refers to "the variables used in a function
definition". E.g., if you Google "arguments vs parameters", you'll get
some explanation like:
> A parameter is a variable in a function definition. It is a
placeholder and hence does not have a concrete value. An argument is a
value passed during function invocation.
We're thus deviating from Python's nomenclature in favor of a scheme
that we find to be more precise.
<!--
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
This PR removes the `Interactive` and `FunctionType` parser modes that are unused by ruff
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
This PR removes the type ignore node from the AST because our parser doesn't support it, and just having it around is confusing.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo build`
<!-- How was it tested? -->
