## Summary
This PR re-introduces the control-flow graph implementation which was
first introduced in #5384, and then removed in #9463 due to not being
feature complete. Mainly, it lacked the ability to process
`try`-`except` blocks, along with some more minor bugs.
Closes#8958 and #8959 and #14881.
## Overview of Changes
I will now highlight the major changes implemented in this PR, in order
of implementation.
1. Introduced a post-processing step in loop handling to find any
`continue` or `break` statements within the loop body and redirect them
appropriately.
2. Introduced a loop-continue block which is always placed at the end of
loop blocks, and ensures proper looping regardless of the internal logic
of the block. This resolves#8958.
3. Implemented `try` processing with the following logic (resolves
#8959):
1. In the example below the cfg first encounters a conditional
`ExceptionRaised` forking if an exception was (or will be) raised in the
try block. This is not possible to know (except for trivial cases) so we
assume both paths can be taken unconditionally.
2. Going down the `try` path the cfg goes `try`->`else`->`finally`
unconditionally.
3. Going down the `except` path the cfg will meet several conditional
`ExceptionCaught` which fork depending on the nature of the exception
caught. Again there's no way to know which exceptions may be raised so
both paths are assumed to be taken unconditionally.
4. If none of the exception blocks catch the exception then the cfg
terminates by raising a new exception.
5. A post-processing step is also implemented to redirect any `raises`
or `returns` within the blocks appropriately.
```python
def func():
try:
print("try")
except Exception:
print("Exception")
except OtherException as e:
print("OtherException")
else:
print("else")
finally:
print("finally")
```
```mermaid
flowchart TD
start(("Start"))
return(("End"))
block0[["`*(empty)*`"]]
block1["print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
block2["print(#quot;else#quot;)\n"]
block3["print(#quot;try#quot;)\n"]
block4[["Exception raised"]]
block5["print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)\n"]
block6["try:
print(#quot;try#quot;)
except Exception:
print(#quot;Exception#quot;)
except OtherException as e:
print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)
else:
print(#quot;else#quot;)
finally:
print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
block7["print(#quot;Exception#quot;)\n"]
block8["try:
print(#quot;try#quot;)
except Exception:
print(#quot;Exception#quot;)
except OtherException as e:
print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)
else:
print(#quot;else#quot;)
finally:
print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
block9["try:
print(#quot;try#quot;)
except Exception:
print(#quot;Exception#quot;)
except OtherException as e:
print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)
else:
print(#quot;else#quot;)
finally:
print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
start --> block9
block9 -- "Exception raised" --> block8
block9 -- "else" --> block3
block8 -- "Exception" --> block7
block8 -- "else" --> block6
block7 --> block1
block6 -- "OtherException" --> block5
block6 -- "else" --> block4
block5 --> block1
block4 --> return
block3 --> block2
block2 --> block1
block1 --> block0
block0 --> return
```
6. Implemented `with` processing with the following logic:
1. `with` statements have no conditional execution (apart from the
hidden logic handling the enter and exit), so the block is assumed to
execute unconditionally.
2. The one exception is that exceptions raised within the block may
result in control flow resuming at the end of the block. Since it is not
possible know if an exception will be raised, or if it will be handled
by the context manager, we assume that execution always continues after
`with` blocks even if the blocks contain `raise` or `return` statements.
This is handled in a post-processing step.
## Test Plan
Additional test fixtures and control-flow fixtures were added.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@gmail.com>
## Summary
Remove `Type::tuple` in favor of `TupleType::from_elements`, avoid a few
intermediate `Vec`tors. Resolves an old [review
comment](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/14744#discussion_r1867493706).
## Test Plan
New regression test for something I ran into while implementing this.
<!--
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? -->
During https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15209, additional spaces
was accidentally added to the rule
`airflow.operators.latest_only.LatestOnlyOperator`. This PR fixes this
issue
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
A test fixture has been included for the rule.
## Summary
Airflow 3.0 removes various deprecated functions, members, modules, and
other values. They have been deprecated in 2.x, but the removal causes
incompatibilities that we want to detect. This PR add rules for the
following.
* Removed class attribute
* `airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.dataset_factories` →
`airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.asset_factories`
* `airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.dataset_uri_handlers` →
`airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.asset_uri_handlers`
*
`airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.dataset_to_openlineage_converters`
→
`airflow.providers_manager.ProvidersManager.asset_to_openlineage_converters`
* `airflow.lineage.hook.DatasetLineageInfo.dataset` →
`airflow.lineage.hook.AssetLineageInfo.asset`
* Removed class method (subclasses in airflow should also checked)
* `airflow.secrets.base_secrets.BaseSecretsBackend.get_conn_uri` →
`airflow.secrets.base_secrets.BaseSecretsBackend.get_conn_value`
* `airflow.secrets.base_secrets.BaseSecretsBackend.get_connections` →
`airflow.secrets.base_secrets.BaseSecretsBackend.get_connection`
* `airflow.hooks.base.BaseHook.get_connections` → use `get_connection`
* `airflow.datasets.BaseDataset.iter_datasets` →
`airflow.sdk.definitions.asset.BaseAsset.iter_assets`
* `airflow.datasets.BaseDataset.iter_dataset_aliases` →
`airflow.sdk.definitions.asset.BaseAsset.iter_asset_aliases`
* Removed constructor args (subclasses in airflow should also checked)
* argument `filename_template`
in`airflow.utils.log.file_task_handler.FileTaskHandler`
* in `BaseOperator`
* `sla`
* `task_concurrency` → `max_active_tis_per_dag`
* in `BaseAuthManager`
* `appbuilder`
* Removed class variable (subclasses anywhere should be checked)
* in `airflow.plugins_manager.AirflowPlugin`
* `executors` (from #43289)
* `hooks`
* `operators`
* `sensors`
* Replaced names
* `airflow.hooks.base_hook.BaseHook` → `airflow.hooks.base.BaseHook`
* `airflow.operators.dagrun_operator.TriggerDagRunLink` →
`airflow.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunLink`
* `airflow.operators.dagrun_operator.TriggerDagRunOperator` →
`airflow.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunOperator`
* `airflow.operators.python_operator.BranchPythonOperator` →
`airflow.operators.python.BranchPythonOperator`
* `airflow.operators.python_operator.PythonOperator` →
`airflow.operators.python.PythonOperator`
* `airflow.operators.python_operator.PythonVirtualenvOperator` →
`airflow.operators.python.PythonVirtualenvOperator`
* `airflow.operators.python_operator.ShortCircuitOperator` →
`airflow.operators.python.ShortCircuitOperator`
* `airflow.operators.latest_only_operator.LatestOnlyOperator` →
`airflow.operators.latest_only.LatestOnlyOperator`
In additional to the changes above, this PR also add utility functions
and improve docstring.
## Test Plan
A test fixture is included in the PR.
## Summary
Changes two things about the entry:
* make the example valid TOML - inline tables must be a single line, at
least till v1.1.0 is released,
but also while in the future the toml version used by ruff might handle
it, it would probably be
good to stick to a spec that's readable by the vast majority of other
tools and versions as well,
especially if people are using `pyproject.toml`. The current example
leads to `ruff` failure.
See https://github.com/toml-lang/toml/pull/904
* adds a line about the ability to add non-Python files to the map,
which I think is a specific and
important feature people should know about (in fact, I would assume this
could potentially
become the single biggest use-case for this).
## Test Plan
Ran doc creation as described in the
[contribution](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/contributing/#mkdocs) guide.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
Part of #13773
This PR adds diagnostics when there is a length mismatch during
unpacking between the number of target expressions and the number of
types for the unpack value expression.
There are 3 cases of diagnostics here where the first two occurs when
there isn't a starred expression and the last one occurs when there's a
starred expression:
1. Number of target expressions is **less** than the number of types
that needs to be unpacked
2. Number of target expressions is **greater** then the number of types
that needs to be unpacked
3. When there's a starred expression as one of the target expression and
the number of target expressions is greater than the number of types
Examples for all each of the above cases:
```py
# red-knot: Too many values to unpack (expected 2, got 3) [lint:invalid-assignment]
a, b = (1, 2, 3)
# red-knot: Not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1) [lint:invalid-assignment]
a, b = (1,)
# red-knot: Not enough values to unpack (expected 3 or more, got 2) [lint:invalid-assignment]
a, *b, c, d = (1, 2)
```
The (3) case is a bit special because it uses a distinct wording
"expected n or more" instead of "expected n" because of the starred
expression.
### Location
The diagnostic location is the target expression that's being unpacked.
For nested targets, the location will be the nested expression. For
example:
```py
(a, (b, c), d) = (1, (2, 3, 4), 5)
# ^^^^^^
# red-knot: Too many values to unpack (expected 2, got 3) [lint:invalid-assignment]
```
For future improvements, it would be useful to show the context for why
this unpacking failed. For example, for why the expected number of
targets is `n`, we can highlight the relevant elements for the value
expression.
In the **ecosystem**, **Pyright** uses the target expressions for
location while **mypy** uses the value expression for the location. For
example:
```py
if 1:
# mypy: Too many values to unpack (2 expected, 3 provided) [misc]
# vvvvvvvvv
a, b = (1, 2, 3)
# ^^^^
# Pyright: Expression with type "tuple[Literal[1], Literal[2], Literal[3]]" cannot be assigned to target tuple
# Type "tuple[Literal[1], Literal[2], Literal[3]]" is incompatible with target tuple
# Tuple size mismatch; expected 2 but received 3 [reportAssignmentType]
# red-knot: Too many values to unpack (expected 2, got 3) [lint:invalid-assignment]
```
## Test Plan
Update existing test cases TODO with the error directives.
Fixes: #15176
## Summary
Neither of these rules make any sense in stub files. Technically TC007
should already not have triggered, due to the typing only context of the
binding, but it's better to be explicit.
Keeping TC008 enabled on the other hand makes sense to me, although we
could probably be more aggressive with unquoting in a typing runtime
context.
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run`
