## Summary
Addresses #11974 to add a `RUF` rule to replace `print` expressions in
`assert` statements with the inner message.
An autofix is available, but is considered unsafe as it changes
behaviour of the execution, notably:
- removal of the printout in `stdout`, and
- `AssertionError` instance containing a different message.
While the detection of the condition is a straightforward matter,
deciding how to resolve the print arguments into a string literal can be
a relatively subjective matter. The implementation of this PR chooses to
be as tolerant as possible, and will attempt to reformat any number of
`print` arguments containing single or concatenated strings or variables
into either a string literal, or a f-string if any variables or
placeholders are detected.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`.
## Examples
For ease of discussion, this is the diff for the tests:
```diff
# Standard Case
# Expects:
# - single StringLiteral
-assert True, print("This print is not intentional.")
+assert True, "This print is not intentional."
# Concatenated string literals
# Expects:
# - single StringLiteral
-assert True, print("This print" " is not intentional.")
+assert True, "This print is not intentional."
# Positional arguments, string literals
# Expects:
# - single StringLiteral concatenated with " "
-assert True, print("This print", "is not intentional")
+assert True, "This print is not intentional"
# Concatenated string literals combined with Positional arguments
# Expects:
# - single stringliteral concatenated with " " only between `print` and `is`
-assert True, print("This " "print", "is not intentional.")
+assert True, "This print is not intentional."
# Positional arguments, string literals with a variable
# Expects:
# - single FString concatenated with " "
-assert True, print("This", print.__name__, "is not intentional.")
+assert True, f"This {print.__name__} is not intentional."
# Mixed brackets string literals
# Expects:
# - single StringLiteral concatenated with " "
-assert True, print("This print", 'is not intentional', """and should be removed""")
+assert True, "This print is not intentional and should be removed"
# Mixed brackets with other brackets inside
# Expects:
# - single StringLiteral concatenated with " " and escaped brackets
-assert True, print("This print", 'is not "intentional"', """and "should" be 'removed'""")
+assert True, "This print is not \"intentional\" and \"should\" be 'removed'"
# Positional arguments, string literals with a separator
# Expects:
# - single StringLiteral concatenated with "|"
-assert True, print("This print", "is not intentional", sep="|")
+assert True, "This print|is not intentional"
# Positional arguments, string literals with None as separator
# Expects:
# - single StringLiteral concatenated with " "
-assert True, print("This print", "is not intentional", sep=None)
+assert True, "This print is not intentional"
# Positional arguments, string literals with variable as separator, needs f-string
# Expects:
# - single FString concatenated with "{U00A0}"
-assert True, print("This print", "is not intentional", sep=U00A0)
+assert True, f"This print{U00A0}is not intentional"
# Unnecessary f-string
# Expects:
# - single StringLiteral
-assert True, print(f"This f-string is just a literal.")
+assert True, "This f-string is just a literal."
# Positional arguments, string literals and f-strings
# Expects:
# - single FString concatenated with " "
-assert True, print("This print", f"is not {'intentional':s}")
+assert True, f"This print is not {'intentional':s}"
# Positional arguments, string literals and f-strings with a separator
# Expects:
# - single FString concatenated with "|"
-assert True, print("This print", f"is not {'intentional':s}", sep="|")
+assert True, f"This print|is not {'intentional':s}"
# A single f-string
# Expects:
# - single FString
-assert True, print(f"This print is not {'intentional':s}")
+assert True, f"This print is not {'intentional':s}"
# A single f-string with a redundant separator
# Expects:
# - single FString
-assert True, print(f"This print is not {'intentional':s}", sep="|")
+assert True, f"This print is not {'intentional':s}"
# Complex f-string with variable as separator
# Expects:
# - single FString concatenated with "{U00A0}", all placeholders preserved
condition = "True is True"
maintainer = "John Doe"
-assert True, print("Unreachable due to", condition, f", ask {maintainer} for advice", sep=U00A0)
+assert True, f"Unreachable due to{U00A0}{condition}{U00A0}, ask {maintainer} for advice"
# Empty print
# Expects:
# - `msg` entirely removed from assertion
-assert True, print()
+assert True
# Empty print with separator
# Expects:
# - `msg` entirely removed from assertion
-assert True, print(sep=" ")
+assert True
# Custom print function that actually returns a string
# Expects:
@@ -100,4 +100,4 @@
# Use of `builtins.print`
# Expects:
# - single StringLiteral
-assert True, builtins.print("This print should be removed.")
+assert True, "This print should be removed."
```
## Known Issues
The current implementation resolves all arguments and separators of the
`print` expression into a single string, be it
`StringLiteralValue::single` or a `FStringValue::single`. This:
- potentially joins together strings well beyond the ideal character
limit for each line, and
- does not preserve multi-line strings in their original format, in
favour of a single line `"...\n...\n..."` format.
These are purely formatting issues only occurring in unusual scenarios.
Additionally, the autofix will tolerate `print` calls that were
previously invalid:
```python
assert True, print("this", "should not be allowed", sep=42)
```
This will be transformed into
```python
assert True, f"this{42}should not be allowed"
```
which some could argue is an alteration of behaviour.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
This PR implements the [consider dict
items](https://pylint.pycqa.org/en/latest/user_guide/messages/convention/consider-using-dict-items.html)
rule from Pylint. Enabling this rule flags:
```python
ORCHESTRA = {
"violin": "strings",
"oboe": "woodwind",
"tuba": "brass",
"gong": "percussion",
}
for instrument in ORCHESTRA:
print(f"{instrument}: {ORCHESTRA[instrument]}")
for instrument in ORCHESTRA.keys():
print(f"{instrument}: {ORCHESTRA[instrument]}")
for instrument in (inline_dict := {"foo": "bar"}):
print(f"{instrument}: {inline_dict[instrument]}")
```
For not using `items()` to extract the value out of the dict. We ignore
the case of an assignment, as you can't modify the underlying
representation with the value in the list of tuples returned.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
`cargo test`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR implements the rule B901, which is part of the opinionated rules
of `flake8-bugbear`.
This rule seems to be desired in `ruff` as per
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/3758 and
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/2954#issuecomment-1441162976.
## Test Plan
As this PR was made closely following the
[CONTRIBUTING.md](8a25531a71/CONTRIBUTING.md),
it tests using the snapshot approach, that is described there.
## Sources
The implementation is inspired by [the original implementation in the
`flake8-bugbear`
repository](d1aec4cbef/bugbear.py (L1092)).
The error message and [test
file](d1aec4cbef/tests/b901.py)
where also copied from there.
The documentation I came up with on my own and needs improvement. Maybe
the example given in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/2954#issuecomment-1441162976
could be used, but maybe they are too complex, I'm not sure.
## Open Questions
- [ ] Documentation. (See above.)
- [x] Can I access the parent in a visitor?
The [original
implementation](d1aec4cbef/bugbear.py (L1100))
references the `yield` statement's parent to check if it is an
expression statement. I didn't find a way to do this in `ruff` and used
the `is_expresssion_statement` field on the visitor instead. What are
your thoughts on this? Is it possible and / or desired to access the
parent node here?
- [x] Is `Option::is_some(...)` -> `...unwrap()` the right thing to do?
Referring to [this piece of
code](9d5a280f71/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/flake8_bugbear/rules/return_x_in_generator.rs (L91-L96)).
From my understanding, the `.unwrap()` is safe, because it is checked
that `return_` is not `None`. However, I feel like I missed a more
elegant solution that does both in one.
## Other
I don't know a lot about this rule, I just implemented it because I
found it in a
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/labels/good%20first%20issue.
I'm new to Rust, so any constructive critisism is appreciated.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
- Implements `Y066` from `flake8-pyi` as `PYI066`
- Fixes `PYI006` not being raised for `elif` clauses. This would have
conflicted with PYI006's implementation, so decided to do it in the same
PR.
## Test Plan
`cargo test` / `cargo insta review`
## Summary
Addresses #8451 by implementing rule 116 to add an unsafe fix when sleep
is used with a >24 hour interval to instead consider sleeping forever.
This rule is added as async instead as I my understanding was that these
trio rules would be moved to async anyway.
There are a couple of TODOs, which address further extending the rule by
adding support for lookups and evaluations, and also supporting `anyio`.
## Summary
Based on discussion in #10850.
As it stands today `RUF100` will attempt to replace code redirects with
their target codes even though this is not the "goal" of `RUF100`. This
behavior is confusing and inconsistent, since code redirects which don't
otherwise violate `RUF100` will not be updated. The behavior is also
undocumented. Additionally, users who want to use `RUF100` but do not
want to update redirects have no way to opt out.
This PR explicitly detects redirects with a new rule `RUF101` and
patches `RUF100` to keep original codes in fixes and reporting.
## Test Plan
Added fixture.
## Summary
Fixes#10463
Add `FURB192` which detects violations like this:
```python
# Bad
a = sorted(l)[0]
# Good
a = min(l)
```
There is a caveat that @Skylion007 has pointed out, which is that
violations with `reverse=True` technically aren't compatible with this
change, in the edge case where the unstable behavior is intended. For
example:
```python
from operator import itemgetter
data = [('red', 1), ('blue', 1), ('red', 2), ('blue', 2)]
min(data, key=itemgetter(0)) # ('blue', 1)
sorted(data, key=itemgetter(0))[0] # ('blue', 1)
sorted(data, key=itemgetter(0), reverse=True)[-1] # ('blue, 2')
```
This seems like a rare edge case, but I can make the `reverse=True`
fixes unsafe if that's best.
## Test Plan
This is unit tested.
## References
https://github.com/dosisod/refurb/pull/333/files
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
Add pylint rule invalid-hash-returned (PLE0309)
See https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970 for rules
Test Plan: `cargo test`
TBD: from the description: "Strictly speaking `bool` is a subclass of
`int`, thus returning `True`/`False` is valid. To be consistent with
other rules (e.g.
[PLE0305](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/10962)
invalid-index-returned), ruff will raise, compared to pylint which will
not raise."
Add pylint rule invalid-length-returned (PLE0303)
See https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/970 for rules
Test Plan: `cargo test`
TBD: from the description: "Strictly speaking `bool` is a subclass of
`int`, thus returning `True`/`False` is valid. To be consistent with
other rules (e.g.
[PLE0305](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/10962)
invalid-index-returned), ruff will raise, compared to pylint which will
not raise."
## Summary
This change adds a rule to detect functions declared `async` but lacking
any of `await`, `async with`, or `async for`. This resolves#9951.
## Test Plan
This change was tested by following
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/contributing/#rule-testing-fixtures-and-snapshots
and adding positive and negative cases for each of `await` vs nothing,
`async with` vs `with`, and `async for` vs `for`.
## Summary
Implement new rule: Prefer augmented assignment (#8877). It checks for
the assignment statement with the form of `<expr> = <expr>
<binary-operator> …` with a unsafe fix to use augmented assignment
instead.
## Test Plan
1. Snapshot test is included in the PR.
2. Manually test with playground.
## Summary
This PR adds the implementation for the current
[flake8-bugbear](https://github.com/PyCQA/flake8-bugbear)'s B038 rule.
The B038 rule checks for mutation of loop iterators in the body of a for
loop and alerts when found.
Rational:
Editing the loop iterator can lead to undesired behavior and is probably
a bug in most cases.
Closes#9511.
Note there will be a second iteration of B038 implemented in
`flake8-bugbear` soon, and this PR currently only implements the weakest
form of the rule.
I'd be happy to also implement the further improvements to B038 here in
ruff 🙂
See https://github.com/PyCQA/flake8-bugbear/issues/454 for more
information on the planned improvements.
## Test Plan
Re-using the same test file that I've used for `flake8-bugbear`, which
is included in this PR (look for the `B038.py` file).
Note: this is my first time using `rust` (beside `rustlings`) - I'd be
very happy about thorough feedback on what I could've done better
🙂 - Bring it on 😀
## 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
Add new rule `pyupgrade - UP042` (I picked next available number).
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/discussions/3867
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9569
It should warn + provide a fix `class A(str, Enum)` -> `class
A(StrEnum)` for py311+.
## Test Plan
Added UP042.py test.
## Notes
I did not find a way to call `remove_argument` 2 times consecutively, so
the automatic fixing works only for classes that inherit exactly `str,
Enum` (regardless of the order).
I also plan to extend this rule to support IntEnum in next PR.
Fixes#3259
## Summary
Renames `UnnecessaryComprehensionAnyAll` to
`UnnecessaryComprehensionInCall` and extends the check to `sum`, `min`,
and `max`, in addition to `any` and `all`.
## Test Plan
Updated snapshot test.
Built docs locally and verified the docs for this rule still render
correctly.
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Implement FURB164 in the issue #1348.
Relevant Refurb docs is here:
https://github.com/dosisod/refurb/blob/v2.0.0/docs/checks.md#furb164-no-from-float
I've changed the name from `no-from-float` to
`verbose-decimal-fraction-construction`.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I've written it in the `FURB164.py`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
Implement `singledispatchmethod-function` from pylint, part of #970.
This is essentially a copy paste of #8934 for `@singledispatchmethod`
decorator.
## Test Plan
Text fixture added.
<!--
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
The `lxml` library has been modified to address known vulnerabilities
and unsafe defaults. As such, the `defusedxml`
library is no longer necessary, `defusedxml` has deprecated its `lxml`
module.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10030.
