## Summary
This PR updates our E721 implementation and semantics to match the
updated `pycodestyle` logic, which I think is an improvement.
Specifically, we now allow `type(obj) is int` for exact type
comparisons, which were previously impossible. So now, we're largely
just linting against code like `type(obj) == int`.
This change is gated to preview mode.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7904.
## Test Plan
Updated the test fixture and ensured parity with latest Flake8.
## Summary
This PR updates our documentation for the upcoming formatter release.
Broadly, the documentation is now structured as follows:
- Overview
- Tutorial
- Installing Ruff
- The Ruff Linter
- Overview
- `ruff check`
- Rule selection
- Error suppression
- Exit codes
- The Ruff Formatter
- Overview
- `ruff format`
- Philosophy
- Configuration
- Format suppression
- Exit codes
- Black compatibility
- Known deviations
- Configuring Ruff
- pyproject.toml
- File discovery
- Configuration discovery
- CLI
- Shell autocompletion
- Preview
- Rules
- Settings
- Integrations
- `pre-commit`
- VS Code
- LSP
- PyCharm
- GitHub Actions
- FAQ
- Contributing
The major changes include:
- Removing the "Usage" section from the docs, and instead folding that
information into "Integrations" and the new Linter and Formatter
sections.
- Breaking up "Configuration" into "Configuring Ruff" (for generic
configuration), and new Linter- and Formatter-specific sections.
- Updating all example configurations to use `[tool.ruff.lint]` and
`[tool.ruff.format]`.
My suggestion is to pull and build the docs locally, and review by
reading them in the browser rather than trying to parse all the code
changes.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7235.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7647.
This is my first PR and I'm new at rust, so feel free to ask me to
rewrite everything if needed ;)
The rule must be called after deferred lambas have been visited because
of the last check (whether the lambda parameters are used in the body of
the function that's being called). I didn't know where to do it, so I
did what I could to be able to work on the rule itself:
- added a `ruff_linter::checkers::ast::analyze::lambda` module
- build a vec of visited lambdas in `visit_deferred_lambdas`
- call `analyze::lambda` on the vec after they all have been visited
Building that vec of visited lambdas was necessary so that bindings
could be properly resolved in the case of nested lambdas.
Note that there is an open issue in pylint for some false positives, do
we need to fix that before merging the rule?
https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/issues/8192
Also, I did not provide any fixes (yet), maybe we want do avoid merging
new rules without fixes?
## Summary
Checks for lambdas whose body is a function call on the same arguments
as the lambda itself.
### Bad
```python
df.apply(lambda x: str(x))
```
### Good
```python
df.apply(str)
```
## Test Plan
Added unit test and snapshot.
Manually compared pylint and ruff output on pylint's test cases.
## References
- [pylint
documentation](https://pylint.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_guide/messages/warning/unnecessary-lambda.html)
- [pylint
implementation](https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/blob/main/pylint/checkers/base/basic_checker.py#L521-L587)
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970
## Summary
The lint checks for number of arguments in a function *definition*, but
the message says “function *call*”
## Test Plan
See what breaks and change the tests
Given `print(*a_list_with_elements, sep="\n")`, we can't remove the
separator (unlike in `print(a, sep="\n")`), since we don't know how many
arguments were provided.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8078.
- Add changelog entry for 0.1.1
- Bump version to 0.1.1
- Require preview for fix added in #7967
- Allow duplicate headings in changelog (markdownlint setting)
## Summary
In #6157 a warning was introduced when users use `ruff: noqa`
suppression in-line instead of at the file-level. I had this trigger
today after forgetting about it, and the warning is an excellent
improvement.
I knew immediately what the issue was because I raised it previously,
but on reading the warning I'm not sure it would be so obvious to all
users. This PR extends the error with a short sentence explaining that
line-level suppression should omit the `ruff:` prefix.
## Test Plan
Not sure it's necessary for such a trivial change :)
<!--
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
In https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/7968, I introduced a
regression whereby we started to treat imports used _only_ in type
annotation bounds (with `__future__` annotations) as unused.
The root of the issue is that I started using `visit_annotation` for
these bounds. So we'd queue up the bound in the list of deferred type
parameters, then when visiting, we'd further queue it up in the list of
deferred type annotations... Which we'd then never visit, since deferred
type annotations are visited _before_ deferred type parameters.
Anyway, the better solution here is to use a dedicated flag for these,
since they have slightly different behavior than type annotations.
I've also fixed what I _think_ is a bug whereby we previously failed to
resolve `Callable` in:
```python
type RecordCallback[R: Record] = Callable[[R], None]
from collections.abc import Callable
```
IIUC, the values in type aliases should be evaluated lazily, like type
parameters.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8017.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Rule B005 of flake8-bugbear docs has a typo in one of the examples that
leads to a confusion in the correctness of `.strip()` method
```python
# Wrong output (used in docs)
"text.txt".strip(".txt") # "ex"
# Correct output
"text.txt".strip(".txt") # "e"
```
## Summary
### What it does
This rule triggers an error when a bare raise statement is not in an
except or finally block.
### Why is this bad?
If raise statement is not in an except or finally block, there is no
active exception to
re-raise, so it will fail with a `RuntimeError` exception.
### Example
```python
def validate_positive(x):
if x <= 0:
raise
```
Use instead:
```python
def validate_positive(x):
if x <= 0:
raise ValueError(f"{x} is not positive")
```
## Test Plan
Added unit test and snapshot.
Manually compared ruff and pylint outputs on pylint's tests.
## References
- [pylint
documentation](https://pylint.pycqa.org/en/stable/user_guide/messages/error/misplaced-bare-raise.html)
- [pylint
implementation](https://github.com/pylint-dev/pylint/blob/main/pylint/checkers/exceptions.py#L339)
## Summary
Given `type RecordOrThings = Record | int | str`, the right-hand side
won't be evaluated at runtime. Same goes for `Record` in `type
RecordCallback[R: Record] = Callable[[R], None]`. This PR modifies the
visitation logic to treat them as typing-only.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7966.
