## Summary
This PR is a pure refactor to simplify some of the logic for `RUF027`.
This will make it easier to file some followup PRs to help reduce the
false positives from this rule. I'm separating the refactor out into a
separate PR so it's easier to review, and so I can double-check from the
ecosystem report that this doesn't have any user-facing impact.
## Test Plan
`cargo test -p ruff_linter --lib`
This adds the `fast-api-unused-path-parameter` lint rule, as described
in #12632.
I'm still pretty new to rust, so the code can probably be improved, feel
free to tell me if there's any changes i should make.
Also, i needed to add the `add_parameter` edit function, not sure if it
was in the scope of the PR or if i should've made another one.
List and set comprehensions using `async for` cannot be replaced with
underlying generators; this PR modifies C419 to skip such
comprehensions.
Closes#12891.
## Summary
Occasionally, we receive bug reports that imports in `src` directories
aren't correctly detected. The root of the problem is that we default to
`src = ["."]`, so users have to set `src = ["src"]` explicitly. This PR
extends the default to cover _both_ of them: `src = [".", "src"]`.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/12454.
## Test Plan
I replicated the structure described in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/12453, and verified that the
imports were considered sorted, but that adding `src = ["."]` showed an
error.
## 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.
