## Summary
Adds a JSON schema generation step for Red Knot. This PR doesn't yet add
a publishing step because it's still a bit early for that
## Test plan
I tested the schema in Zed, VS Code and PyCharm:
* PyCharm: You have to manually add a schema mapping (settings JSON
Schema Mappings)
* Zed and VS code support the inline schema specification
```toml
#:schema /Users/micha/astral/ruff/knot.schema.json
[environment]
extra-paths = []
[rules]
call-possibly-unbound-method = "error"
unknown-rule = "error"
# duplicate-base = "error"
```
```json
{
"$schema": "file:///Users/micha/astral/ruff/knot.schema.json",
"environment": {
"python-version": "3.13",
"python-platform": "linux2"
},
"rules": {
"unknown-rule": "error"
}
}
```
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a18fcd96-7cbe-4110-985b-9f1935584411
The Schema overall works but all editors have their own quirks:
* PyCharm: Hovering a name always shows the section description instead
of the description of the specific setting. But it's the same for other
settings in `pyproject.toml` files 🤷
* VS Code (JSON): Using the generated schema in a JSON file gives
exactly the experience I want
* VS Code (TOML):
* Properties with multiple possible values are repeated during
auto-completion without giving any hint how they're different. 
* The property description mushes together the description of the
property and the value, which looks sort of ridiculous. 
* Autocompletion and documentation hovering works (except the
limitations mentioned above)
* Zed:
* Very similar to VS Code with the exception that it uses the
description attribute to distinguish settings with multiple possible
values 
I don't think there's much we can do here other than hope (or help)
editors improve their auto completion. The same short comings also apply
to ruff, so this isn't something new. For now, I think this is good
enough
## Summary
This is the third and last PR in this stack that adds support for
toggling lints at a per-rule level.
This PR introduces a new `LintRegistry`, a central index of known lints.
The registry is required because we want to support lint rules from many
different crates but need a way to look them up by name, e.g., when
resolving a lint from a name in the configuration or analyzing a
suppression comment.
Adding a lint now requires two steps:
1. Declare the lint with `declare_lint`
2. Register the lint in the registry inside the `register_lints`
function.
I considered some more involved macros to avoid changes in two places.
Still, I ultimately decided against it because a) it's just two places
and b) I'd expect that registering a type checker lint will differ from
registering a lint that runs as a rule in the linter. I worry that any
more opinionated design could limit our options when working on the
linter, so I kept it simple.
The second part of this PR is the `RuleSelection`. It stores which lints
are enabled and what severity they should use for created diagnostics.
For now, the `RuleSelection` always gets initialized with all known
lints and it uses their default level.
## Linter crates
Each crate that defines lints should export a `register_lints` function
that accepts a `&mut LintRegistryBuilder` to register all its known
lints in the registry. This should make registering all known lints in a
top-level crate easy: Just call `register_lints` of every crate that
defines lint rules.
I considered defining a `LintCollection` trait and even some fancy
macros to accomplish the same but decided to go for this very simplistic
approach for now. We can add more abstraction once needed.
## Lint rules
This is a bit hand-wavy. I don't have a good sense for how our linter
infrastructure will look like, but I expect we'll need a way to register
the rules that should run as part of the red knot linter. One way is to
keep doing what Ruff does by having one massive `checker` and each lint
rule adds a call to itself in the relevant AST visitor methods. An
alternative is that we have a `LintRule` trait that provides common
hooks and implementations will be called at the "right time". Such a
design would need a way to register all known lint implementations,
possibly with the lint. This is where we'd probably want a dedicated
`register_rule` method. A third option is that lint rules are handled
separately from the `LintRegistry` and are specific to the linter crate.
The current design should be flexible enough to support the three
options.
## Documentation generation
The documentation for all known lints can be generated by creating a
factory, registering all lints by calling the `register_lints` methods,
and then querying the registry for the metadata.
## Deserialization and Schema generation
I haven't fully decided what the best approach is when it comes to
deserializing lint rule names:
* Reject invalid names in the deserializer. This gives us error messages
with line and column numbers (by serde)
* Don't validate lint rule names during deserialization; defer the
validation until the configuration is resolved. This gives us more
control over handling the error, e.g. emit a warning diagnostic instead
of aborting when a rule isn't known.
One technical challenge for both deserialization and schema generation
is that the `Deserialize` and `JSONSchema` traits do not allow passing
the `LintRegistry`, which is required to look up the lints by name. I
suggest that we either rely on the salsa db being set for the current
thread (`salsa::Attach`) or build our own thread-local storage for the
`LintRegistry`. It's the caller's responsibility to make the lint
registry available before calling `Deserialize` or `JSONSchema`.
## CLI support
I prefer deferring adding support for enabling and disabling lints from
the CLI for now because I think it will be easier
to add once I've figured out how to handle configurations.
## Bitset optimization
Ruff tracks the enabled rules using a cheap copyable `Bitset` instead of
a hash map. This helped improve performance by a few percent (see
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/3606). However, this approach is
no longer possible because lints have no "cheap" way to compute their
index inside the registry (other than using a hash map).
We could consider doing something similar to Salsa where each
`LintMetadata` stores a `LazyLintIndex`.
```
pub struct LazyLintIndex {
cached: OnceLock<(Nonce, LintIndex)>
}
impl LazyLintIndex {
pub fn get(registry: &LintRegistry, lint: &'static LintMetadata) {
let (nonce, index) = self.cached.get_or_init(|| registry.lint_index(lint));
if registry.nonce() == nonce {
index
} else {
registry.lint_index(lint)
}
}
```
Each registry keeps a map from `LintId` to `LintIndex` where `LintIndex`
is in the range of `0...registry.len()`. The `LazyLintIndex` is based on
the assumption that every program has exactly **one** registry. This
assumption allows to cache the `LintIndex` directly on the
`LintMetadata`. The implementation falls back to the "slow" path if
there is more than one registry at runtime.
I was very close to implementing this optimization because it's kind of
fun to implement. I ultimately decided against it because it adds
complexity and I don't think it's worth doing in Red Knot today:
* Red Knot only queries the rule selection when deciding whether or not
to emit a diagnostic. It is rarely used to detect if a certain code
block should run. This is different from Ruff where the rule selection
is queried many times for every single AST node to determine which rules
*should* run.
* I'm not sure if a 2-3% performance improvement is worth the complexity
I suggest revisiting this decision when working on the linter where a
fast path for deciding if a rule is enabled might be more important (but
that depends on how lint rules are implemented)
## Test Plan
I removed a lint from the default rule registry, and the MD tests
started failing because the diagnostics were no longer emitted.
## Summary
This is the second PR out of three that adds support for
enabling/disabling lint rules in Red Knot. You may want to take a look
at the [first PR](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/14869) in this
stack to familiarize yourself with the used terminology.
This PR adds a new syntax to define a lint:
```rust
declare_lint! {
/// ## What it does
/// Checks for references to names that are not defined.
///
/// ## Why is this bad?
/// Using an undefined variable will raise a `NameError` at runtime.
///
/// ## Example
///
/// ```python
/// print(x) # NameError: name 'x' is not defined
/// ```
pub(crate) static UNRESOLVED_REFERENCE = {
summary: "detects references to names that are not defined",
status: LintStatus::preview("1.0.0"),
default_level: Level::Warn,
}
}
```
A lint has a name and metadata about its status (preview, stable,
removed, deprecated), the default diagnostic level (unless the
configuration changes), and documentation. I use a macro here to derive
the kebab-case name and extract the documentation automatically.
This PR doesn't yet add any mechanism to discover all known lints. This
will be added in the next and last PR in this stack.
## Documentation
I documented some rules but then decided that it's probably not my best
use of time if I document all of them now (it also means that I play
catch-up with all of you forever). That's why I left some rules
undocumented (marked with TODO)
## Where is the best place to define all lints?
I'm not sure. I think what I have in this PR is fine but I also don't
love it because most lints are in a single place but not all of them. If
you have ideas, let me know.
## Why is the message not part of the lint, unlike Ruff's `Violation`
I understand that the main motivation for defining `message` on
`Violation` in Ruff is to remove the need to repeat the same message
over and over again. I'm not sure if this is an actual problem. Most
rules only emit a diagnostic in a single place and they commonly use
different messages if they emit diagnostics in different code paths,
requiring extra fields on the `Violation` struct.
That's why I'm not convinced that there's an actual need for it and
there are alternatives that can reduce the repetition when creating a
diagnostic:
* Create a helper function. We already do this in red knot with the
`add_xy` methods
* Create a custom `Diagnostic` implementation that tailors the entire
diagnostic and pre-codes e.g. the message
Avoiding an extra field on the `Violation` also removes the need to
allocate intermediate strings as it is commonly the place in Ruff.
Instead, Red Knot can use a borrowed string with `format_args`
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
