## Summary
Fixes#20440
Fix B004 to skip invalid hasattr/getattr calls
- Add argument validation for `hasattr` and `getattr`
- Skip B004 rule when function calls have invalid argument patterns
## Summary
Implements new rule `B912` that requires the `strict=` argument for
`map(...)` calls with two or more iterables on Python 3.14+, following
the same pattern as `B905` for `zip()`.
Closes#20057
---------
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@gmail.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Resolves#20033
## Test Plan
unit tests added to the new split function, existing snapshot test
updated.
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#19887
- flynt(FLY002): When joining only string constants, upgrade raw
single-quoted strings to raw triple-quoted if the resulting
content contains a newline.
- Choose a safe triple-quote delimiter by switching to the opposite
quote style if the preferred triple appears inside the
content.
- Update FLY002 snapshot to include the `\n'.join([r'line1','line2'])`
case.
## Test Plan
I've added one test case to FLY002.py.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#20255
Mark single-item-membership-test fixes as always unsafe
- Always set `Applicability::Unsafe` for FURB171 fixes
- Update “Fix safety” docs to reflect always-unsafe behavior
- Expand tests (not in, nested set/frozenset, commented args)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have added new test cases to
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/refurb/FURB171_0.py` and
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/refurb/FURB171_1.py`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/20134
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run flake8_use_pathlib`
---------
Co-authored-by: Dan Parizher <danparizher@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
Part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/2331
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run flake8_use_pathlib`
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
This refactors the importer abstraction to use a shared
`Insertion`. This is mostly just moving some code around
with some slight tweaks.
The plan here is to keep the rest of the importing code
in `ruff_linter` and then write something ty-specific on
top of `Insertion`. This ends up sharing some code, but
not as much as would be ideal. In particular, the
`ruff_linter` imported is pretty tightly coupled with
ruff's semantic model. So to share the code, we'd need to
abstract over that.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This PR implements F406
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/undefined-local-with-nested-import-star-usage/
as a semantic syntax error
## Test Plan
I have written inline tests as directed in #17412
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
- Convert panics to diagnostics with id `Panic`, severity `Fatal`, and
the error as the diagnostic message, annotated with a `Span` with empty
code block and no range.
- Updates the post-linting message diagnostic handling to track the
maximum severity seen, and then prints the "report a bug in ruff"
message only if the max severity was `Fatal`
This depends on the sorting changes since it creates diagnostics with no
range specified.
## Summary
Resolves#20266
Definition of the frozen dataclass attribute can be instantiation of a
nested frozen dataclass as well as a non-nested one.
### Problem explanation
The `function_call_in_dataclass_default` function is invoked during the
"defined scope" stage, after all scopes have been processed. At this
point, the semantic references the top-level scope. When
`SemanticModel::lookup_attribute` executes, it searches for bindings in
the top-level module scope rather than the class scope, resulting in an
error.
To solve this issue, the lookup should be evaluated through the class
scope.
## Test Plan
- Added test case from issue
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
## Summary
Fixes#19842
Prevent infinite loop with I002 and UP026
- Implement isort-aware handling for UP026 (deprecated mock import):
- Add CLI integration tests in crates/ruff/tests/lint.rs:
## Test Plan
I have added two integration tests
`pyupgrade_up026_respects_isort_required_import_fix` and
`pyupgrade_up026_respects_isort_required_import_from_fix` in
`crates/ruff/tests/lint.rs`.
## Summary
Resolves#20282
Makes the rule fix always unsafe, because the replacement may not be
semantically equivalent to the original expression, potentially changing
the behavior of the code.
Updated docstring with examples.
## Test Plan
- Added two tests from issue and regenerated the snapshot
---------
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
Fixes#20204
Recognize t-strings, generators, and lambdas in RUF016
- Accept boolean literals as valid index and slice bounds.
- Add TString, Generator, and Lambda to `CheckableExprType`.
- Expand RUF016.py fixture and update snapshots accordingly.
Our token-based rules and `noqa` extraction used an `Indexer` that kept
track of f-string ranges but not t-strings. We've updated the `Indexer`
and downstream uses thereof to handle both f-strings and t-strings.
Most of the diff is renaming and adding tests.
Note that much of the "new" logic gets to be naive because the lexer has
already ensured that f and t-string "starts" are paired with their
respective "ends", even amidst nesting and so on.
Finally: one could imagine wanting to know if a given interpolated
string range corresponds to an f-string or a t-string, but I didn't find
a place where we actually needed this.
Closes#20310
## Summary
This is the GitHub analog to #20117. This PR prepares to add a GitHub
output format to ty by moving the implementation from `ruff_linter` to
`ruff_db`. Hopefully this one is a bit easier to review
commit-by-commit. Almost all of the refactoring this time is in the
first commit, then the second commit adds the new `OutputFormat` variant
and moves the file into `ruff_db`. The third commit is just a small
touch up to use a private method that accommodates ty files so that we
can run the tests and update/move the snapshots.
I had to push a fourth commit to fix and test diagnostics without a
span/file.
## Test Plan
Existing tests
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#20235
• Fix `RUF102` to properly handle rule redirects when validating noqa
codes
• Update `code_is_valid` to check redirect targets before determining
validity
• Add test case for rule redirects (TCH002 in this case)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have added a test case for rule redirects to
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/RUF102.py`.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Closes#18349
After this change:
- All deprecated rules are deselected by default
- They are only selected if the user specifically selects them by code,
e.g. `--select UP038`
- Thus, `--select ALL --select UP --select UP0` won't select the
deprecated rule UP038
- Documented the change in version policy. From now on, deprecating a
rule should increase the minor version
## Test Plan
Integration tests in "integration_tests.rs"
Also tested with a temporary test package:
```
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP038
warning: Rule `UP038` is deprecated and will be removed in a future release.
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
UP038 Use `X | Y` in `isinstance` call instead of `(X, Y)`
--> main.py:2:11
|
1 | def main():
2 | print(isinstance(25, (str, int)))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: Convert to `X | Y`
Found 1 error.
No fixes available (1 hidden fix can be enabled with the `--unsafe-fixes` option).
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP03
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP0
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select ALL
# warnings and errors, but because of other errors, UP038 was deselected
```
- **Stabilize `airflow3-suggested-update` (`AIR311`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-suggested-to-move-to-provider` (`AIR312`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-removal` (`AIR301`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-moved-to-provider` (`AIR302`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow-dag-no-schedule-argument` (`AIR002`)**
I put this all in one PR to make it easier to double check with @Lee-W
before we merge this. I also made a few minor documentation changes and
updated one error message that I want to make sure are okay. But for the
most part this just moves the rules from `RuleGroup::Preview` to
`RuleGroup::Stable`!
Fixes#17749
This stabilizes the behavior introduced in #16565 which (roughly) tries
to match an import like `import a.b.c` to an actual directory path
`a/b/c` in order to label it as first-party, rather than simply looking
for a directory `a`.
Mainly this affects the sorting of imports in the presence of namespace
packages, but a few other rules are affected as well.
This one has been a bit contentious in the past. It usually uncovers
~700 ecosystem hits. See:
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16657
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16690
But I think there's consensus that it's okay to merge as-is. We'd love
an
autofix since it's so common, but we can't reliably tell what a user
meant. The
pattern is ambiguous after all 😆
This is the first rule that actually needed its test case relocated, but
the
docs looked good.
## Summary
This PR Removes deprecated UP038 as per instructed in #18727closes#18727
## Test Plan
I have run tests non of them failing
One Question i have is do we have to document that UP038 is removed?
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
closes#7710
## Test Plan
It is is removal so i don't think we have to add tests otherwise i have
followed test plan mentioned in contributing.md
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
