## Summary
When negating an expression like `a or b`, we need to wrap it in
parentheses, e.g., `not (a or b)` instead of `not a or b`, due to
operator precedence.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10335.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
This PR fixes the following false positive in a `.pyi` stub file:
```py
x: int
y = x # F821 currently emitted here, but shouldn't be in a stub file
```
In a `.py` file, this is invalid regardless of whether `from __future__ import annotations` is enabled or not. In a `.pyi` stub file, however, it's always valid, as an annotation counts as a binding in a stub file even if no value is assigned to the variable.
I also added more test coverage for `.pyi` stub files in various edge cases where ruff's behaviour is currently correct, but where `.pyi` stub files do slightly different things to `.py` files.
## Summary
Fixes#10295.
`E225` (`Missing whitespace around operator`) and `E275` (`Missing
whitespace after keyword`) try to add a white space even when the next
character is a `)` (which is a syntax error in most cases, the
exceptions already being handled). This causes `E202` (`Whitespace
before close bracket`) to try to remove the added whitespace, resulting
in an infinite loop when `E225`/`E275` re-add it.
This PR adds an exception in `E225` and `E275` to not trigger in case
the next token is a `)`. It is a bit simplistic, but it solves the
example given in the issue without introducing a change in behavior
(according to the fixtures).
## Test Plan
`cargo test` and the `ruff-ecosystem` check were used to check that the
PR's changes do not have side-effects.
A new fixture was added to check that running the 3 rules on the example
given in the issue does not cause ruff to fail to converge.
## Summary
The code later in this file that checks for slices relies on the stack
of brackets to determine the position. I'm not sure why format strings
were being excluded from this, but the tests still pass with these match
guards removed.
Closes#10278
## Test Plan
~Still needs a test.~ Test case added for this example.
## Summary
Given a format string like `"{x} {x}".format(x=foo())`, we should avoid
converting to an f-string, since doing so would require repeating the
function call (`f"{foo()} {foo()}"`), which could introduce side
effects.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10258.
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10039
The [recommendation for typing stub
files](https://typing.readthedocs.io/en/latest/source/stubs.html#blank-lines)
is to use **one** blank line to group related definitions and
otherwise omit blank lines.
The newly added blank line rules (`E3*`) didn't account for typing stub
files and enforced two empty lines at the top level and one empty line
otherwise, making it impossible to group related definitions.
This PR implements the `E3*` rules to:
* Not enforce blank lines. The use of blank lines in typing definitions
is entirely up to the user.
* Allow at most one empty line, including between top level statements.
## Test Plan
Added unit tests (It may look odd that many snapshots are empty but the
point is that the rule should no longer emit diagnostics)
## Summary
This PR changes the `E3*` rules to respect the `isort`
`lines-after-imports` and `lines-between-types` settings. Specifically,
the following rules required changing
* `TooManyBlannkLines` : Respects both settings.
* `BlankLinesTopLevel`: Respects `lines-after-imports`. Doesn't need to
respect `lines-between-types` because it only applies to classes and
functions
The downside of this approach is that `isort` and the blank line rules
emit a diagnostic when there are too many blank lines. The fixes aren't
identical, the blank line is less opinionated, but blank lines accepts
the fix of `isort`.
<details>
<summary>Outdated approach</summary>
Fixes
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10077#issuecomment-1961266981
This PR changes the blank line rules to not enforce the number of blank
lines after imports (top-level) if isort is enabled and leave it to
isort to enforce the right number of lines (depends on the
`isort.lines-after-imports` and `isort.lines-between-types` settings).
The reason to give `isort` precedence over the blank line rules is that
they are configurable. Users that always want to blank lines after
imports can use `isort.lines-after-imports=2` to enforce that
(specifically for imports).
This PR does not fix the incompatibility with the formatter in pyi files
that only uses 0 to 1 blank lines. I'll address this separately.
</details>
## Review
The first commit is a small refactor that simplified implementing the
fix (and makes it easier to reason about what's mutable and what's not).
## Test Plan
I added a new test and verified that it fails with an error that the fix
never converges. I verified the snapshot output after implementing the
fix.
---------
Co-authored-by: Hoël Bagard <34478245+hoel-bagard@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
This PR fixes for `invalid-first-argument` rules.
The fixes rename the first argument of methods and class methods to the
valid one. References to this argument are also renamed.
Fixes are skipped when another argument is named as the valid first
argument.
The fix is marked as unsafe due
The functions for the `N804` and `N805` rules are now merged, as they
only differ by the name of the valid first argument.
The rules were moved from the AST iteration to the deferred scopes to be
in the function scope while creating the fix.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Fixes#10174 by allowing match cases to be enclosing nodes for
suppression comments. `else/elif` clauses are now also allowed to be
enclosing nodes.
## Test Plan
I've added the offending code from the original issue to the `RUF028`
snapshot test, and I've also expanded it to test the allowed `else/elif`
clause.
## Summary
This fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7868.
Support isort's `default-section` feature which allows any imports that
match sections that are not in `section-order` to be mapped to a
specifically named section.
https://pycqa.github.io/isort/docs/configuration/options.html#default-section
This has a few implications:
- It is no longer required that all known sections are defined in
`section-order`.
- This is technically a bw-incompat change because currently if folks
define custom groups, and do not define a `section-order`, the code used
to add all known sections to `section-order` while emitting warnings.
**However, when this happened, users would be seeing warnings so I do
not think it should count as a bw-incompat change.**
## Test Plan
- Added a new test.
- Did not break any existing tests.
Finally, I ran the following config against Pyramid's complex codebase
that was previously using isort and this change worked there.
### pyramid's previous isort config
5f7e286b06/pyproject.toml (L22-L37)
```toml
[tool.isort]
profile = "black"
multi_line_output = 3
src_paths = ["src", "tests"]
skip_glob = ["docs/*"]
include_trailing_comma = true
force_grid_wrap = false
combine_as_imports = true
line_length = 79
force_sort_within_sections = true
no_lines_before = "THIRDPARTY"
sections = "FUTURE,THIRDPARTY,FIRSTPARTY,LOCALFOLDER"
default_section = "THIRDPARTY"
known_first_party = "pyramid"
```
### tested with ruff isort config
```toml
[tool.ruff.lint.isort]
case-sensitive = true
combine-as-imports = true
force-sort-within-sections = true
section-order = [
"future",
"third-party",
"first-party",
"local-folder",
]
default-section = "third-party"
known-first-party = [
"pyramid",
]
```
<!--
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?
-->
Fixes#6611
## Summary
This lint rule spots comments that are _intended_ to suppress or enable
the formatter, but will be ignored by the Ruff formatter.
We borrow some functions the formatter uses for determining comment
placement / putting them in context within an AST.
The analysis function uses an AST visitor to visit each comment and
attach it to the AST. It then uses that context to check:
1. Is this comment in an expression?
2. Does this comment have bad placement? (e.g. a `# fmt: skip` above a
function instead of at the end of a line)
3. Is this comment redundant?
4. Does this comment actually suppress any code?
5. Does this comment have ambiguous placement? (e.g. a `# fmt: off`
above an `else:` block)
If any of these are true, a violation is thrown. The reported reason
depends on the order of the above check-list: in other words, a `# fmt:
skip` comment on its own line within a list expression will be reported
as being in an expression, since that reason takes priority.
The lint suggests removing the comment as an unsafe fix, regardless of
the reason.
## Test Plan
A snapshot test has been created.
## Summary
Currently, rule `RUF015` is not able to detect the usage of
`list(iterable).pop(0)` falling under the category of an _unnecessary
iterable allocation for accessing the first element_. This PR wants to
change that. See the underlying issue for more details.
* Provide extension to detect `list(iterable).pop(0)`, but not
`list(iterable).pop(i)` where i > 1
* Update corresponding doc
## Test Plan
* `RUF015.py` and the corresponding snap file were extended such that
their correspond to the new behaviour
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9190
---
PS: I've only been working on this ticket as I haven't seen any activity
from issue assignee @rmad17, neither in this repo nor in a fork. I hope
I interpreted his inactivity correctly. Didn't mean to steal his chance.
Since I stumbled across the underlying problem myself, I wanted to offer
a solution as soon as possible.
## Summary
It is a convention to use the `_()` alias for `gettext()`. We want to
avoid
statement expressions and assignments related to aliases of the gettext
API.
See https://docs.python.org/3/library/gettext.html for details. When one
uses `_() to mark a string for translation, the tools look for these
markers
and replace the original string with its translated counterpart. If the
string contains variable placeholders or formatting, it can complicate
the
translation process, lead to errors or incorrect translations.
## Test Plan
* Test file `RUF027_1.py` was extended such that the test reproduces the
false-positive
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10023.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
Update PLR1714 to ignore `sys.platform` and `sys.version` checks.
I'm not sure if these checks or if we need to add more. Please advise.
Fixes#10017
## Test Plan
Added a new test case and ran `cargo nextest run`
## Summary
Allows, e.g.:
```python
import os
os.environ["WORLD_SIZE"] = "1"
os.putenv("CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES", "4")
import torch
```
For now, this is only allowed in preview.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10059
## Summary
Closes#10031
- Detect commented out `case` statements. Playground repro:
https://play.ruff.rs/5a305aa9-6e5c-4fa4-999a-8fc427ab9a23
- Add more support for one-line commented out code.
## Test Plan
Unit tested and tested with
```sh
cargo run -p ruff -- check crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/eradicate/ERA001.py --no-cache --preview --select ERA001
```
TODO:
- [x] `cargo insta test`
## Summary
Fixes#9895
The cause for this panic came from an offset error in the code. When
analyzing a hypothetical f-string, we attempt to re-parse it as an
f-string, and use the AST data to determine, among other things, whether
the format specifiers are correct. To determine the 'correctness' of a
format specifier, we actually have to re-parse the format specifier, and
this is where the issue lies. To get the source text for the specifier,
we were taking a slice from the original file source text... even though
the AST data for the specifier belongs to the standalone parsed f-string
expression, meaning that the ranges are going to be way off. In a file
with Unicode, this can cause panics if the slice is inside a char
boundary.
To fix this, we now slice from the temporary source we created earlier
to parse the literal as an f-string.
## Test Plan
The RUF027 snapshot test was amended to include a string with format
specifiers which we _should_ be calling out. This is to ensure we do
slice format specifiers from the source text correctly.
## Summary
Ignore `async for` loops when checking the SIM113 rule.
Closes#9995
## Test Plan
A new test case was added to SIM113.py with an async for loop.
## Summary
Implement [implicit readlines
(FURB129)](https://github.com/dosisod/refurb/blob/master/refurb/checks/iterable/implicit_readlines.py)
lint.
## Notes
I need a help/an opinion about suggested implementations.
This implementation differs from the original one from `refurb` in the
following way. This implementation checks syntactically the call of the
method with the name `readlines()` inside `for` {loop|generator
expression}. The implementation from refurb also
[checks](https://github.com/dosisod/refurb/blob/master/refurb/checks/iterable/implicit_readlines.py#L43)
that callee is a variable with a type `io.TextIOWrapper` or
`io.BufferedReader`.
- I do not see a simple way to implement the same logic.
- The best I can have is something like
```rust
checker.semantic().binding(checker.semantic().resolve_name(attr_expr.value.as_name_expr()?)?).statement(checker.semantic())
```
and analyze cases. But this will be not about types, but about guessing
the type by assignment (or with) expression.
- Also this logic has several false negatives, when the callee is not a
variable, but the result of function call (e.g. `open(...)`).
- On the other side, maybe it is good to lint this on other things,
where this suggestion is not safe, and push the developers to change
their interfaces to be less surprising, comparing with the standard
library.
- Anyway while the current implementation has false-positives (I
mentioned some of them in the test) I marked the fixes to be unsafe.
## Summary
Accept 0.0 and 1.0 as common magic values. This is in line with the
pylint behaviour, and I think makes sense conceptually.
## Test Plan
Test cases were added to
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/magic_value_comparison.py`
## Summary
This PR ensures that if a list `x` is modified within a `for` loop, we
avoid flagging `list(x)` as unnecessary. Previously, we only detected
calls to exactly `.append`, and they couldn't be nested within other
statements.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9925.
## Summary
If these are defined within class scopes, they're actually attributes of
the class, and can be accessed through the class itself.
(We preserve our existing behavior for `.pyi` files.)
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9948.
## Summary
Currently these rules apply the heuristic that if the original sequence
doesn't have a newline in between the final sequence item and the
closing parenthesis, the autofix won't add one for you. The feedback
from @ThiefMaster, however, was that this was producing slightly unusual
formatting -- things like this:
```py
__all__ = [
"b", "c",
"a", "d"]
```
were being autofixed to this:
```py
__all__ = [
"a",
"b",
"c",
"d"]
```
When, if it was _going_ to be exploded anyway, they'd prefer something
like this (with the closing parenthesis on its own line, and a trailing comma added):
```py
__all__ = [
"a",
"b",
"c",
"d",
]
```
I'm still pretty skeptical that we'll be able to please everybody here
with the formatting choices we make; _but_, on the other hand, this
_specific_ change is pretty easy to make.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`. I also ran the autofixes for RUF022 and RUF023 on CPython
to check how they looked; they looked fine to me.
## Summary
If a generic appears multiple times on the right-hand side, we should
only include it once on the left-hand side when rewriting.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9904.
## Summary
This review contains a fix for
[D405](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/capitalize-section-name/)
(capitalize-section-name)
The problem is that Ruff considers the sub-section header as a normal
section if it has the same name as some section name. For instance, a
function/method has an argument named "parameters". This only applies if
you use Numpy style docstring.
See: [ISSUE](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9806)
The following will not raise D405 after the fix:
```python
def some_function(parameters: list[str]):
"""A function with a parameters parameter
Parameters
----------
parameters:
A list of string parameters
"""
...
```
## Test Plan
```bash
cargo test
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Mikko Leppänen <mikko.leppanen@vaisala.com>
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
Fixes#9857.
## Summary
Statements like `logging.info("Today it is: {day}")` will no longer be
ignored by RUF027. As before, statements like `"Today it is:
{day}".format(day="Tuesday")` will continue to be ignored.
## Test Plan
The snapshot tests were expanded to include new cases. Additionally, the
snapshot tests have been split in two to separate positive cases from
negative cases.
