## Summary
Consider single element subscript expr for implicit optional.
On `main`, the cases where there is only a single element in the
subscript
list was giving false positives such as for the following:
```python
typing.Union[None]
typing.Literal[None]
```
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
Check for `Any` in other types for `ANN401`. This reuses the logic from
`implicit-optional` rule to resolve the type to `Any`.
Following types are supported:
* `Union[Any, ...]`
* `Any | ...`
* `Optional[Any]`
* `Annotated[<any of the above variant>, ...]`
* Forward references i.e., `"Any | ..."`
## Test Plan
Added test cases for various combinations.
fixes: #5458
## Summary
Do not raise `EXE001` and `EXE002` if WSL is detected. Uses the
[`wsl`](https://crates.io/crates/wsl) crate.
Closes#5445.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
I don't use Windows, so was unable to test on a WSL environment. It
would be good if someone who runs Windows could check the functionality.
## Summary
Python doesn't allow `"Foo" | None` if the annotation will be evaluated
at runtime (see the comments in the PR, or the semantic model
documentation for more on what this means and when it is true), but it
_does_ allow it if the annotation is typing-only.
This, for example, is invalid, as Python will evaluate `"Foo" | None` at
runtime in order to
populate the function's `__annotations__`:
```python
def f(x: "Foo" | None): ...
```
This, however, is valid:
```python
def f():
x: "Foo" | None
```
As is this:
```python
from __future__ import annotations
def f(x: "Foo" | None): ...
```
Closes#5706.
## Summary
`StmtAnnAssign` would not insert parentheses when breaking the same way
`StmtAssign` does, causing unstable formatting and likely some syntax
errors.
## Test Plan
I added a regression test.
## Summary
The previous dummy was causing instabilities since it turned a string
into a variable.
E.g.
```python
script_header_dict[
"slurm_partition_line"
] = f"#SBATCH --partition {resources.queue_name}"
```
has an instability as
```python
- script_header_dict["slurm_partition_line"] = (
- NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
- )
+ script_header_dict[
+ "slurm_partition_line"
+ ] = NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
```
## Test Plan
The instability is gone, otherwise it's still a dummy
## Summary
Implement Pylint rule [`consider-using-in`
(`R1714`)](https://pylint.pycqa.org/en/latest/user_guide/messages/refactor/consider-using-in.html)
as `repeated-equality-comparison-target` (`PLR1714`). This rule checks
for expressions that can be re-written as a membership test for better
readability and performance.
For example,
```python
foo == "bar" or foo == "baz" or foo == "qux"
```
should be rewritten as
```python
foo in {"bar", "baz", "qux"}
```
Related to #970. Includes documentation.
### Implementation quirks
The implementation does not work with Yoda conditions (e.g., `"a" ==
foo` instead of `foo == "a"`). The Pylint version does. I couldn't find
a way of supporting Yoda-style conditions without it being inefficient,
so didn't (I don't think people write Yoda conditions any way).
## Test Plan
Added fixture.
`cargo test`
## Summary
We have two `Cursor` implementations. This PR moves the implementation
from the formatter into `ruff_python_whitespace` (kind of a poorly-named
crate now) and uses it for both use-cases.
## Summary
Document all `ruff_dev` subcommands and document the `format_dev` flags
in the formatter readme.
CC @zanieb please flag everything that isn't clear or missing
## Test Plan
n/a
Detects invalid types for tuple, list, bytes, string indices.
For example, the following will raise a `TypeError` at runtime and when
imported Python will display a `SyntaxWarning`
```python
var = [1, 2, 3]["x"]
```
```
example.py:1: SyntaxWarning: list indices must be integers or slices, not str; perhaps you missed a comma?
var = [1, 2, 3]["x"]
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "example.py", line 1, in <module>
var = [1, 2, 3]["x"]
~~~~~~~~~^^^^^
TypeError: list indices must be integers or slices, not str
```
Previously, Ruff would not report the invalid syntax but now a violation
will be reported. This does not apply to cases where a variable, call,
or complex expression is used in the index — detection is roughly
limited to static definitions, which matches Python's warnings.
```
❯ ./target/debug/ruff example.py --select RUF015 --show-source --no-cache
example.py:1:17: RUF015 Indexed access to type `list` uses type `str` instead of an integer or slice.
|
1 | var = [1, 2, 3]["x"]
| ^^^ RUF015
|
```
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/5082
xref
ffff1440d1
## Summary
Replaces `DictionaryKey` enum with the more general `ComparableExpr`
when checking for duplicate keys
## Test Plan
Added test fixture from issue. Can potentially be expanded further
depending on what exactly we want to flag (e.g. do we also want to check
for unhashable types?) and which `ComparableExpr::XYZ` types we consider
literals.
## Issue link
Closes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/5691
## Summary
Similar to #5567, we can remove the use of regex, plus simplify the
representation (use `Option`), add snapshot tests, etc.
This is about 100x faster than using a regex for cases that match (2.5ns
vs. 250ns). It's obviously not a hot path, but I prefer the consistency
with other similar comment-parsing. I may DRY these up into some common
functionality later on.
<!--
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 matches Black' behavior where it only omits the optional parentheses if the expression starts or ends with a parenthesized expression:
```python
a + [aaa, bbb, cccc] * c # Don't omit
[aaa, bbb, cccc] + a * c # Split
a + c * [aaa, bbb, ccc] # Split
```
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
This improves the Jaccard index from 0.945 to 0.946
<!--
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 improves the Black compatibility when it comes to breaking comprehensions.
We want to avoid line breaks before the target and `in` whenever possible. Furthermore, `if X is not None` should be grouped together, similar to other binary like expressions
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
We don't use `ModExpression` anywhere but it's part of the AST, removes
one `not_implemented_yet` and is a trivial 2-liner, so i implemented
formatting for `ModExpression`.
## Test Plan
None, this kind of node does not occur in file input. Otherwise all the
tests for expressions
<!--
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
I started working on this because I assumed that I would need access to options inside of `NeedsParantheses` but it then turned out that I won't.
Anyway, it kind of felt nice to pass fewer arguments. So I'm gonna put this out here to get your feedback if you prefer this over passing individual fiels.
Oh, I sneeked in another change. I renamed `context.contents` to `source`. `contents` is too generic and doesn't tell you anything.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
It compiles
<!--
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 `mode` field from `BestFitting` because it is no longer used (we now use `conditional_group` and `fits_expanded).
<!-- 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 implements Black's behavior where it first splits off parenthesized expressions before splitting before operands to avoid unnecessary parentheses:
```python
# We want
if a + [
b,
c
]:
pass
# Rather than
if (
a
+ [b, c]
):
pass
```
This is implemented by using the new IR elements introduced in #5596.
* We give the group wrapping the optional parentheses an ID (`parentheses_id`)
* We use `conditional_group` for the lower priority groups (all non-parenthesized expressions) with the condition that the `parentheses_id` group breaks (we want to split before operands only if the parentheses are necessary)
* We use `fits_expanded` to wrap all other parenthesized expressions (lists, dicts, sets), to prevent that expanding e.g. a list expands the `parentheses_id` group. We gate the `fits_expand` to only apply if the `parentheses_id` group fits (because we prefer `a\n+[b, c]` over expanding `[b, c]` if the whole expression gets parenthesized).
We limit using `fits_expanded` and `conditional_group` only to expressions that themselves are not in parentheses (checking the conditions isn't free)
## Test Plan
It increases the Jaccard index for Django from 0.915 to 0.917
## Incompatibilites
There are two incompatibilities left that I'm aware of (there may be more, I didn't go through all snapshot differences).
### Long string literals
I commented on the regression. The issue is that a very long string (or any content without a split point) may not fit when only breaking the right side. The formatter than inserts the optional parentheses. But this is kind of useless because the overlong string will still not fit, because there are no new split points.
I think we should ignore this incompatibility for now
### Expressions on statement level
I don't fully understand the logic behind this yet, but black doesn't break before the operators for the following example even though the expression exceeds the configured line width
```python
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa < bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb > ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc == ddddddddddddddddddddd
```
But it would if the expression is used inside of a condition.
What I understand so far is that Black doesn't insert optional parentheses on the expression statement level (and a few other places) and, therefore, only breaks after opening parentheses. I propose to keep this deviation for now to avoid overlong-lines and use the compatibility report to make a decision if we should implement the same behavior.
## Summary
The similarity index, the fraction of unchanged lines, is easier to
understand than the jaccard index, the fraction between intersection and
union.
## Test Plan
I ran this on django and git a 0.945 index, meaning 5.5% of lines are
currently reformatted when compared to black
## Summary
Format statements such as `tree_depth += 1`. This is a statement that
does not allow any line breaks, the only thing to be mindful of is to
parenthesize the assigned expression
Jaccard index on django: 0.915 -> 0.918
## Test Plan
black tests, and two new tests, a basic one and one that ensures that
the child gets parentheses. I ran the django stability check.
## Summary
This is the result of running `cargo +nightly clippy --workspace
--all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings` and fixing all violations.
Just wanted to see if there were any interesting new checks on nightly
👀
## Summary
This PR implements the formatting of `raise` statements. I haven't
looked at the black implementation, this is inspired from from the
`return` statements formatting.
## Test Plan
The black differences with insta.
I also compared manually some edge cases with very long string and call
chaining and it seems to do the same formatting as black.
There is one issue:
```python
# input
raise OsError(
"aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa"
) from a.aaaaa(aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa).a(aaaa)
# black
raise OsError(
"aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa"
) from a.aaaaa(
aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa
).a(
aaaa
)
# ruff
raise OsError(
"aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa"
) from a.aaaaa(
aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa
).a(aaaa)
```
But I'm not sure this diff is the raise formatting implementation.
---------
Co-authored-by: Louis Dispa <ldispa@deezer.com>
## Summary
#5658 didn't actually ignore bivariate types in some all cases (sorry
about that). This PR fixes that and adds bivariate types to the test
fixture.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Change the `type-name-incorrect-variance` diagnostic message to include
the detected variance and a name change recommendation. For example,
```
`TypeVar` name "T_co" does not reflect its contravariance; consider renaming it to "T_contra"
```
Related to #5651.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Non-behavior-changing refactors to delay some `.is_builtin` calls in a
few older rules. Cheaper pre-conditions should always be checked first.
## Summary
Fixes#5503. Ready for final review as the `mkdocs` issue involving SSH
keys is fixed.
Note that this will only throw on a `Name` - it will be refactorable
once we have a type-checker. This means that this is the only sort of
input that will throw.
```python
x = range(10)
list(x)[0]
```
I thought it'd be confusing if we supported direct function results.
Consider this example, assuming we support direct results:
```python
# throws
list(range(10))[0]
def createRange(bound):
return range(bound)
# "why doesn't this throw, but a direct `range(10)` call does?"
list(createRange(10))[0]
```
If it's necessary, I can go through the list of built-ins and find those
which produce iterables, then add them to the throwing list.
## Test Plan
Added a new fixture, then ran `cargo t`
## Summary
Implement Pylint `typevar-name-incorrect-variance` (`C0105`) as
`type-name-incorrect-variance` (`PLC0105`). Includes documentation.
Related to #970.
The Pylint implementation checks only `TypeVar`, but this PR checks
`ParamSpec` as well.
## Test Plan
Added test fixture.
`cargo test`
## Summary
Completes all the documentation for the `pandas-vet` rules, except for
`pandas-use-of-dot-read-table` as I am unclear of the rule's motivation
(see #5628).
Related to #2646.
## Test Plan
`python scripts/check_docs_formatted.py && mkdocs serve`
