## Summary
This PR adds support for VS Code specific cell metadata to consider when
collecting valid code cells.
For context, Ruff only runs on valid code cells. These are the code
cells that doesn't contain cell magics. Previously, Ruff only used the
notebook's metadata to determine whether it's a Python notebook. But, in
VS Code, a notebook's preferred language might be Python but it could
still contain code cells for other languages. This can be determined
with the `metadata.vscode.languageId` field.
### References:
* https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/languages/identifiers
* e6c009a3d4/extensions/ipynb/src/serializers.ts (L104-L107)
*
e6c009a3d4/extensions/ipynb/src/serializers.ts (L117-L122)
This brings us one step closer to fixing #12281.
## Test Plan
Add test cases for `is_valid_python_code_cell` and an integration test
case which showcase running it end to end. The test notebook contains a
JavaScript code cell and a Python code cell.
## Summary
This PR fixes a bug in the semantic model where it would evaluate the
default parameter value in the type parameter scope. For example,
```py
def foo[T1: int](a = T1):
pass
```
Here, the `T1` in `a = T1` is undefined but Ruff doesn't flag it
(https://play.ruff.rs/ba2f7c2f-4da6-417e-aa2a-104aa63e6d5e).
The fix here is to evaluate the default parameter value in the
_enclosing_ scope instead.
## Test Plan
Add a test case which includes the above code under `F821`
(`undefined-name`) and validate the snapshot.
## Summary
See #12703. This only addresses the first bullet point, adding a space
after the comma in the suggested fix from list/tuple to string.
## Test Plan
Updated the snapshots and compared.
In most cases we should suggest a ternary operator, but there are three
edge cases where a binary operator is more appropriate.
Given an if-else block of the form
```python
if test:
target_var = body_value
else:
target_var = else_value
```
This PR updates the check for SIM108 to the following:
- If `test == body_value` and preview enabled, suggest to replace with
`target_var = test or else_value`
- If `test == not body_value` and preview enabled, suggest to replace
with `target_var = body_value and else_value`
- If `not test == body_value` and preview enabled, suggest to replace
with `target_var = body_value and else_value`
- Otherwise, suggest to replace with `target_var = body_value if test
else else_value`
Closes#12189.
## Summary
Adding parentheses to a tuple in a subscript with elements that include
slice expressions causes a syntax error. For example, `d[(1,2,:)]` is a
syntax error.
So, when `lint.ruff.parenthesize-tuple-in-subscript = true` and the
tuple includes a slice expression, we skip this check and fix.
Closes#12766.
> ~Builtins are also more efficient than `for` loops.~
Let's not promise performance because this code transformation does not
deliver.
Benchmark written by @dcbaker
> `any()` seems to be about 1/3 as fast (Python 3.11.9, NixOS):
```python
loop = 'abcdef'.split()
found = 'f'
nfound = 'g'
def test1():
for x in loop:
if x == found:
return True
return False
def test2():
return any(x == found for x in loop)
def test3():
for x in loop:
if x == nfound:
return True
return False
def test4():
return any(x == nfound for x in loop)
if __name__ == "__main__":
import timeit
print('for loop (found) :', timeit.timeit(test1))
print('for loop (not found):', timeit.timeit(test3))
print('any() (found) :', timeit.timeit(test2))
print('any() (not found) :', timeit.timeit(test4))
```
```
for loop (found) : 0.051076093994197436
for loop (not found): 0.04388196699437685
any() (found) : 0.15422860698890872
any() (not found) : 0.15568504799739458
```
I have retested with longer lists and on multiple Python versions with
similar results.
Implements the new fixable lint rule `RUF031` which checks for the use or omission of parentheses around tuples in subscripts, depending on the setting `lint.ruff.parenthesize-tuple-in-getitem`. By default, the use of parentheses is considered a violation.
<!--
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#12636
Consider docstrings which begin with the word "Returns" as having
satisfactorily documented they're returns. For example
```python
def f():
"""Returns 1."""
return 1
```
is valid.
## Test Plan
Added example to test fixture.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
## Summary
Removes set comprehension as a violation for `sum` when checking `C419`,
because set comprehension may de-duplicate entries in a generator,
thereby modifying the value of the sum.
Closes#12690.
## Summary
Make it a violation of `C409` to call `tuple` with a list or set
comprehension, and
implement the (unsafe) fix of calling the `tuple` with the underlying
generator instead.
Closes#12648.
## Test Plan
Test fixture updated, cargo test, docs checked for updated description.
## Summary
Adds autofix for `RUF007`
## Test Plan
`cargo test`, however I get errors for `test resolver::tests::symlink
... FAILED` which seems to not be my fault
## Summary
Fixes#12630.
DOC501 and DOC502 now understand functions with constructs like this to
be explicitly raising `TypeError` (which should be documented in a
function's docstring):
```py
try:
foo():
except TypeError:
...
raise
```
I made an exception for `Exception` and `BaseException`, however.
Constructs like this are reasonably common, and I don't think anybody
would say that it's worth putting in the docstring that it raises "some
kind of generic exception":
```py
try:
foo()
except BaseException:
do_some_logging()
raise
```
## Test Plan
`cargo test -p ruff_linter --lib`
## Summary
Please see
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/12605#discussion_r1699957443 for
a description of the issue.
They way I fixed it is to get the *last* timeout item in the `with`, and
if it's an `async with` and there are items after it, then don't trigger
the lint.
## Test Plan
Updated the fixture with some more cases.
## Summary
There's still a problem here. Given:
```python
class Class():
pass
# comment
# another comment
a = 1
```
We only add one newline before `a = 1` on the first pass, because
`max_precedling_blank_lines` is 1... We then add the second newline on
the second pass, so it ends up in the right state, but the logic is
clearly wonky.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/11508.
