This PR introduces three changes to the diagnostic and fix behavior
(still under preview) for [boolean-chained-comparison
(PLR1716)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/boolean-chained-comparison/#boolean-chained-comparison-plr1716).
1. We now offer a _fix_ in the case of parenthesized expressions like
`(a < b) and b < c`. The fix will merge the chains of comparisons and
then balance parentheses by _adding_ parentheses to one side of the
expression.
2. We now trigger a diagnostic (and fix) in the case where some
comparisons have multiple comparators like `a < b < c and c < d`.
3. When adjacent comparators are parenthesized, we prefer the left
parenthesization and apply the replacement to the whole parenthesized
range. So, for example, `a < (b) and ((b)) < c` becomes `a < (b) < c`.
While these seem like somewhat disconnected changes, they are actually
related. If we only offered (1), then we would see the following fix
behavior:
```diff
- (a < b) and b < c and ((c < d))
+ (a < b < c) and ((c < d))
```
This is because the fix which add parentheses to the first pair of
comparisons overlaps with the fix that removes the `and` between the
second two comparisons. So the latter fix is deferred. However, the
latter fix does not get a second chance because, upon the next lint
iteration, there is no violation of `PLR1716`.
Upon adopting (2), however, both fixes occur by the time ruff completes
several iterations and we get:
```diff
- (a < b) and b < c and ((c < d))
+ ((a < b < c < d))
```
Finally, (3) fixes a previously unobserved bug wherein the autofix for
`a < (b) and b < c` used to result in `a<(b<c` which gives a syntax
error. It could in theory have been fixed in a separate PR, but seems to
be on theme here.
----------
- Closes#13524
- (1), (2), and (3) are implemented in separate commits for ease of
review and modification.
- Technically a user can trigger an error in ruff (by reaching max
iterations) if they have a humongous boolean chained comparison with
differing parentheses levels.
<!--
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? -->
Related to #970. Implement [`shallow-copy-environ /
W1507`](https://pylint.readthedocs.io/en/stable/user_guide/messages/warning/shallow-copy-environ.html).
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Unit test
---------
Co-authored-by: Simon Brugman <sbrugman@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fix `await-outside-async` to allow `await` at the top-level scope of a
notebook.
```python
# foo.ipynb
await asyncio.sleep(1) # should be allowed
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
A unit test
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/13545
As described in the issue, we move comments before the inner `if`
statement to before the newly constructed `elif` statement (previously
`else`).
Related to https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/13524
Doesn't offer a valid fix, opting to instead just not offer a fix at
all. If someone points me to a good way to handle parenthesis here I'm
down to try to fix the fix separately, but it looks quite hard.
## Summary
The `SequenceIndexVisitor` currently does not recurse into
subexpressions of subscripts when searching for subscript accesses that
would trigger this rule. That means that we don't currently detect
violations of the rule on snippets like this:
```py
data = {"a": 1, "b": 2}
column_names = ["a", "b"]
for index, column_name in enumerate(column_names):
_ = data[column_names[index]]
```
Fixes#13183
## Test Plan
`cargo test -p ruff_linter`
## Summary
This PR allows us to fix both expressions in `foo == "a" or foo == "b"
or ("c" != bar and "d" != bar)`, but limits the rule to consecutive
comparisons, following https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7797.
I think this logic was _probably_ added because of
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/12368 -- the intent being that
we'd replace the _entire_ expression.
## Summary
I believe these should always bind more tightly -- e.g., in:
```python
for _ in bar(baz for foo in [1]):
pass
```
The inner `baz` and `foo` should be considered comprehension variables,
not for loop bindings.
We need to revisit this more holistically. In some of these cases,
`BindingKind` should probably be a flag, not an enum, since the values
aren't mutually exclusive. Separately, we should probably be more
precise in how we set it (e.g., by passing down from the parent rather
than sniffing in `handle_node_store`).
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/12339
## Summary
This PR updates the linter, specifically the token-based rules, to work
on the tokens that come after a syntax error.
For context, the token-based rules only diagnose the tokens up to the
first lexical error. This PR builds up an error resilience by
introducing a `TokenIterWithContext` which updates the `nesting` level
and tries to reflect it with what the lexer is seeing. This isn't 100%
accurate because if the parser recovered from an unclosed parenthesis in
the middle of the line, the context won't reduce the nesting level until
it sees the newline token at the end of the line.
resolves: #11915
## Test Plan
* Add test cases for a bunch of rules that are affected by this change.
* Run the fuzzer for a long time, making sure to fix any other bugs.
## Summary
This adds a fix for the `duplicate-bases` rule that removes the
duplicate base from the class definition.
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run duplicate_bases`, `cargo insta review`.
## Summary
This rule removes `PLR1701` and redirects it to `SIM101`.
In addition to that, the `SIM101` autofix has been fixed to add padding
if required.
### `PLR1701` has bugs
It also seems that the implementation of `PLR1701` is incorrect in
multiple scenarios. For example, the following code snippet:
```py
# There are two _different_ variables `a` and `b`
if isinstance(a, int) or isinstance(b, bool) or isinstance(a, float):
pass
# There's another condition `or 1`
if isinstance(self.k, int) or isinstance(self.k, float) or 1:
pass
```
is fixed to:
```py
# Fixed to only considering variable `a`
if isinstance(a, (float, int)):
pass
# The additional condition is not present in the fix
if isinstance(self.k, (float, int)):
pass
```
Playground: https://play.ruff.rs/6cfbdfb7-f183-43b0-b59e-31e728b34190
## Documentation Preview
### `PLR1701`
<img width="1397" alt="Screenshot 2024-06-25 at 11 14 40"
src="779ee84d-7c4d-4bb8-a3a4-c2b23a313eba">
## Test Plan
Remove the test cases for `PLR1701`, port the padding test case to
`SIM101` and update the snapshot.
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
This PR implements the [consider dict
items](https://pylint.pycqa.org/en/latest/user_guide/messages/convention/consider-using-dict-items.html)
rule from Pylint. Enabling this rule flags:
```python
ORCHESTRA = {
"violin": "strings",
"oboe": "woodwind",
"tuba": "brass",
"gong": "percussion",
}
for instrument in ORCHESTRA:
print(f"{instrument}: {ORCHESTRA[instrument]}")
for instrument in ORCHESTRA.keys():
print(f"{instrument}: {ORCHESTRA[instrument]}")
for instrument in (inline_dict := {"foo": "bar"}):
print(f"{instrument}: {inline_dict[instrument]}")
```
For not using `items()` to extract the value out of the dict. We ignore
the case of an assignment, as you can't modify the underlying
representation with the value in the list of tuples returned.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
`cargo test`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
Matching Pylint, we now omit the `try` body itself from branch counting.
Each `except` counts as a branch, as does the `else` and the `finally`.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/11205.
## Summary
Should this consider the decorator only if the name is actually a
property or is the logic in this PR correct?
fixes: #11358
## Test Plan
Add test case.
<!--
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
Resolves#11263
Detect `pathlib.Path.open` calls which do not specify a file encoding.
## Test Plan
Test cases added to fixture.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
Resolves https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/11313
## Summary
PLR0912(too-many-branches) did not count branches inside with: blocks.
With this fix, the branches inside with statements are also counted.
## Test Plan
Added a new test case.
Add pylint rule invalid-hash-returned (PLE0309)
See https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970 for rules
Test Plan: `cargo test`
TBD: from the description: "Strictly speaking `bool` is a subclass of
`int`, thus returning `True`/`False` is valid. To be consistent with
other rules (e.g.
[PLE0305](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/10962)
invalid-index-returned), ruff will raise, compared to pylint which will
not raise."
Add pylint rule invalid-length-returned (PLE0303)
See https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970 for rules
Test Plan: `cargo test`
TBD: from the description: "Strictly speaking `bool` is a subclass of
`int`, thus returning `True`/`False` is valid. To be consistent with
other rules (e.g.
[PLE0305](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/10962)
invalid-index-returned), ruff will raise, compared to pylint which will
not raise."
