Summary
--
Inspired by #20859, this PR adds the version a rule was added, and the
file and line where it was defined, to `ViolationMetadata`. The file and
line just use the standard `file!` and `line!` macros, while the more
interesting version field uses a new `violation_metadata` attribute
parsed by our `ViolationMetadata` derive macro.
I moved the commit modifying all of the rule files to the end, so it
should be a lot easier to review by omitting that one.
As a curiosity and a bit of a sanity check, I also plotted the rule
numbers over time:
<img width="640" height="480" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/75b0b5cc-3521-4d40-a395-8807e6f4925f"
/>
I think this looks pretty reasonable and avoids some of the artifacts
the earlier versions of the script ran into, such as the `rule`
sub-command not being available or `--explain` requiring a file
argument.
<details><summary>Script and summary data</summary>
```shell
gawk --csv '
NR > 1 {
split($2, a, ".")
major = a[1]; minor = a[2]; micro = a[3]
# sum the number of rules added per minor version
versions[minor] += 1
}
END {
tot = 0
for (i = 0; i <= 14; i++) {
tot += versions[i]
print i, tot
}
}
' ruff_rules_metadata.csv > summary.dat
```
```
0 696
1 768
2 778
3 803
4 822
5 848
6 855
7 865
8 893
9 915
10 916
11 924
12 929
13 932
14 933
```
</details>
Test Plan
--
I built and viewed the documentation locally, and it looks pretty good!
<img width="1466" height="676" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5e227df4-7294-4d12-bdaa-31cac4e9ad5c"
/>
The spacing seems a bit awkward following the `h1` at the top, so I'm
wondering if this might look nicer as a footer in Ruff. The links work
well too:
- [v0.0.271](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/releases/tag/v0.0.271)
- [Related
issues](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues?q=sort%3Aupdated-desc%20is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20airflow-variable-name-task-id-mismatch)
- [View
source](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/main/crates%2Fruff_linter%2Fsrc%2Frules%2Fairflow%2Frules%2Ftask_variable_name.rs#L34)
The last one even works on `main` now since it points to the
`derive(ViolationMetadata)` line.
In terms of binary size, this branch is a bit bigger than main with
38,654,520 bytes compared to 38,635,728 (+20 KB). I guess that's not
_too_ much of an increase, but I wanted to check since we're generating
a lot more code with macros.
---------
Co-authored-by: GiGaGon <107241144+MeGaGiGaGon@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
When using `add_rule.py`, it produces the following line in `codes.rs`
```
(Flake8Async, "102") => (RuleGroup::Stable, rules::flake8-async::rules::BlockingOsCallInAsyncFunction),
```
Causing a syntax error.
This PR resolves that issue so that the script can be used again.
## Test Plan
Tested manually in new rule creation
## Summary
Implement `write-whole-file` (`FURB103`), part of #1348. This is largely
a copy and paste of `read-whole-file` #7682.
## Test Plan
Text fixture added.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
## Summary
The `add_rule.py` script would create a test case that pointed to a file
that didn't exist when the linter is set to `"pylint"`. This PR fixes
that.
## Test Plan
`python scripts/add_rule.py --name DoTheThing --prefix PL --code C0999
--linter pylint`
* Document codes.rs
* Refactor codes.rs before merging
Helper script:
```python
# %%
from pathlib import Path
codes = Path("crates/ruff/src/codes.rs").read_text().splitlines()
rules = Path("a.txt").read_text().strip().splitlines()
rule_map = {i.split("::")[-1]: i for i in rules}
# %%
codes_new = []
for line in codes:
if ", Rule::" in line:
left, right = line.split(", Rule::")
right = right[:-2]
line = left + ", " + rule_map[right] + "),"
codes_new.append(line)
# %%
Path("crates/ruff/src/codes.rs").write_text("\n".join(codes_new))
```
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Plasse <13716151+JonathanPlasse@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
This PR moves `Diagnostic`, `DiagnosticKind`, and `Fix` into their own crate, which will enable us to further split up Ruff, since sub-linter crates (which need to implement functions that return `Diagnostic`) can now depend on `ruff_diagnostics` rather than Ruff.
Currently the define_rule_mapping! macro generates both the Rule enum as
well as the RuleCodePrefix enum and the mapping between the two. After
this commit series the macro will only generate the Rule enum and the
RuleCodePrefix enum and the mapping will be generated by a new map_codes
proc macro, so we rename the macro now to fit its new purpose.
```console
❯ cargo run rule B017
Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.13s
Running `target/debug/ruff rule B017`
no-assert-raises-exception
Code: B017 (flake8-bugbear)
### What it does
Checks for `self.assertRaises(Exception)`.
## Why is this bad?
`assertRaises(Exception)` can lead to your test passing even if the
code being tested is never executed due to a typo.
Either assert for a more specific exception (builtin or custom), use
`assertRaisesRegex` or the context manager form of `assertRaises`.
```
- optional `prefix` argument for `add_plugin.py`
- rules directory instead of `rules.rs`
- pathlib syntax
- fix test case where code was added instead of name
Example:
```
python scripts/add_plugin.py --url https://pypi.org/project/example/1.0.0/ example --prefix EXA
python scripts/add_rule.py --name SecondRule --code EXA002 --linter example
python scripts/add_rule.py --name FirstRule --code EXA001 --linter example
python scripts/add_rule.py --name ThirdRule --code EXA003 --linter example
```
Note that it breaks compatibility with 'old style' plugins (generation works fine, but namespaces need to be changed):
```
python scripts/add_rule.py --name DoTheThing --code PLC999 --linter pylint
```
"origin" was accurate since ruff rules are currently always modeled
after one origin (except the Ruff-specific rules).
Since we however want to introduce a many-to-many mapping between codes
and rules, the term "origin" no longer makes much sense. Rules usually
don't have multiple origins but one linter implements a rule first and
then others implement it later (often inspired from another linter).
But we don't actually care much about where a rule originates from when
mapping multiple rule codes to one rule implementation, so renaming
RuleOrigin to Linter is less confusing with the many-to-many system.
# This commit was automatically generated by running the following
# script (followed by `cargo +nightly fmt`):
import glob
import re
from typing import NamedTuple
class Rule(NamedTuple):
code: str
name: str
path: str
def rules() -> list[Rule]:
"""Returns all the rules defined in `src/registry.rs`."""
file = open('src/registry.rs')
rules = []
while next(file) != 'ruff_macros::define_rule_mapping!(\n':
continue
while (line := next(file)) != ');\n':
line = line.strip().rstrip(',')
if line.startswith('//'):
continue
code, path = line.split(' => ')
name = path.rsplit('::')[-1]
rules.append(Rule(code, name, path))
return rules
code2name = {r.code: r.name for r in rules()}
for pattern in ('src/**/*.rs', 'ruff_cli/**/*.rs', 'ruff_dev/**/*.rs', 'scripts/add_*.py'):
for name in glob.glob(pattern, recursive=True):
with open(name) as f:
text = f.read()
text = re.sub('Rule(?:Code)?::([A-Z]\w+)', lambda m: 'Rule::' + code2name[m.group(1)], text)
text = re.sub(r'(?<!"<FilePattern>:<)RuleCode\b', 'Rule', text)
text = re.sub('(use crate::registry::{.*, Rule), Rule(.*)', r'\1\2', text) # fix duplicate import
with open(name, 'w') as f:
f.write(text)
