<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Fixes#18353
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Snapshot tests
Summary
--
This PR adds a `DiagnosticGuard` type to ruff that is adapted from the
`DiagnosticGuard` and `LintDiagnosticGuard` types from ty. This guard is
returned by `Checker::report_diagnostic` and derefs to a
`ruff_diagnostics::Diagnostic` (`OldDiagnostic`), allowing methods like
`OldDiagnostic::set_fix` to be called on the result. On `Drop` the
`DiagnosticGuard` pushes its contained `OldDiagnostic` to the `Checker`.
The main motivation for this is to make a following PR adding a
`SourceFile` to each diagnostic easier. For every rule where a `Checker`
is available, this will now only require modifying
`Checker::report_diagnostic` rather than all the rules.
In the few cases where we need to create a diagnostic before we know if
we actually want to emit it, there is a `DiagnosticGuard::defuse`
method, which consumes the guard without emitting the diagnostic. I was
able to restructure about half of the rules that naively called this to
avoid calling it, but a handful of rules still need it.
One of the fairly common patterns where `defuse` was needed initially
was something like
```rust
let diagnostic = Diagnostic::new(DiagnosticKind, range);
if !checker.enabled(diagnostic.rule()) {
return;
}
```
So I also added a `Checker::checked_report_diagnostic` method that
handles this check internally. That helped to avoid some additional
`defuse` calls. The name is a bit repetitive, so I'm definitely open to
suggestions there. I included a warning against using it in the docs
since, as we've seen, the conversion from a diagnostic to a rule is
actually pretty expensive.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
Summary
--
I thought that emitting multiple diagnostics at once would be difficult
to port to a diagnostic construction model closer to ty's
`InferContext::report_lint`, so as a first step toward that, this PR
removes `Checker::report_diagnostics`.
In many cases I was able to do some related refactoring to avoid
allocating a `Vec<Diagnostic>` at all, often by adding a `Checker` field
to a `Visitor` or by passing a `Checker` instead of a `&mut
Vec<Diagnostic>`.
In other cases, I had to fall back on something like
```rust
for diagnostic in diagnostics {
checker.report_diagnostic(diagnostic);
}
```
which I guess is a bit worse than the `extend` call in
`report_diagnostics`, but hopefully it won't make too much of a
difference.
I'm still not quite sure what to do with the remaining loop cases. The
two main use cases for collecting a sequence of diagnostics before
emitting any of them are:
1. Applying a single `Fix` to a group of diagnostics
2. Avoiding an earlier diagnostic if something goes wrong later
I was hoping we could get away with just a `DiagnosticGuard` that
reported a `Diagnostic` on drop, but I guess we will still need a
`DiagnosticGuardBuilder` that can be collected in these cases and
produce a `DiagnosticGuard` once we know we actually want the
diagnostics.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `SIM110` (#15584 )
### Unsafe Fix Example
```python
def predicate(item):
global called
called += 1
if called == 1:
# after first call we change the method
def new_predicate(_): return False
globals()['predicate'] = new_predicate
return True
def foo():
for item in range(10):
if predicate(item):
return True
return False
def foo_gen():
return any(predicate(item) for item in range(10))
called = 0
print(foo()) # true – returns immediately on first call
called = 0
print(foo_gen()) # false – second call uses new `predicate`
```
### Note
I notice that
[here](46be305ad2/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/flake8_simplify/rules/reimplemented_builtin.rs (L60))
we have two rules, `SIM110` & `SIM111`. The second one seems not anymore
active. Should I delete `SIM111`?
## Summary
This PR unifies the ruff `Message` enum variants for syntax errors and
rule violations into a single `Message` struct consisting of a shared
`db::Diagnostic` and some additional, optional fields used for some rule
violations.
This version of `Message` is nearly a drop-in replacement for
`ruff_diagnostics::Diagnostic`, which is the next step I have in mind
for the refactor.
I think this is also a useful checkpoint because we could possibly add
some of these optional fields to the new `Diagnostic` type. I think
we've previously discussed wanting support for `Fix`es, but the other
fields seem less relevant, so we may just need to preserve the `Message`
wrapper for a bit longer.
## Test plan
Existing tests
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
* Remove the following rules
* name
* `airflow.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.is_authorized_dataset` →
`airflow.api_fastapi.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.is_authorized_asset`
*
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.fab_auth_manager.is_authorized_dataset`
→
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.fab_auth_manager.is_authorized_asset`
* Update the following rules
* name
* `airflow.models.baseoperatorlink.BaseOperatorLink` →
`airflow.sdk.BaseOperatorLink`
* `airflow.api_connexion.security.requires_access` → "Use
`airflow.api_fastapi.core_api.security.requires_access_*` instead`"
* `airflow.api_connexion.security.requires_access_dataset`→
`airflow.api_fastapi.core_api.security.requires_access_asset`
* `airflow.notifications.basenotifier.BaseNotifier` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.notifier.BaseNotifier`
* `airflow.www.auth.has_access` → None
* `airflow.www.auth.has_access_dataset` → None
* `airflow.www.utils.get_sensitive_variables_fields`→ None
* `airflow.www.utils.should_hide_value_for_key`→ None
* class attribute
* `airflow..sensors.weekday.DayOfWeekSensor`
* `use_task_execution_day` removed
*
`airflow.providers.amazon.aws.auth_manager.aws_auth_manager.AwsAuthManager`
* `is_authorized_dataset`
* Add the following rules
* class attribute
* `airflow.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.BaseAuthManager` |
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.fab_auth_manager.FabAuthManager`
* name
* `airflow.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.BaseAuthManager` →
`airflow.api_fastapi.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.BaseAuthManager` *
`is_authorized_dataset` → `is_authorized_asset`
* refactor
* simplify unnecessary match with if else
* rename Replacement::Name as Replacement::AttrName
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixtures have been revised and updated.
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
In the later development of Airflow 3.0, backward compatibility was not
added for some cases. Thus, the following rules are moved back to AIR302
* airflow.hooks.subprocess.SubprocessResult →
airflow.providers.standard.hooks.subprocess.SubprocessResult
* airflow.hooks.subprocess.working_directory →
airflow.providers.standard.hooks.subprocess.working_directory
* airflow.operators.datetime.target_times_as_dates →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.datetime.target_times_as_dates
* airflow.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunLink →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunLink
* airflow.sensors.external_task.ExternalTaskSensorLink →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.external_task.ExternalDagLink (**This
one contains a minor change**)
* airflow.sensors.time_delta.WaitSensor →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.time_delta.WaitSensor
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Summary
--
I noticed these `cfg` directives while working on diagnostics. I think
it makes more sense to apply an `insta` filter in the test instead. I
copied this filter from a CLI test for the same rule.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests, especially Windows CI on this PR
The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `SIM210` (#15584 )
It is a little cheating, as the Fix safety section is copy/pasted by
#18086 as the problem is the same.
### Unsafe Fix Example
```python
class Foo():
def __eq__(self, other):
return 0
def foo():
return True if Foo() == 0 else False
def foo_fix():
return Foo() == 0
print(foo()) # False
print(foo_fix()) # 0
```
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Fixes#18107
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
`ProviderReplacement::Name` was designed back when we only wanted to do
linting. Now we also want to fix the user code. It would be easier for
us to replace them with better AutoImport struct.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixture has been updated as some cases can now be fixed
## Summary
This PR deletes the `DiagnosticKind` type by inlining its three fields
(`name`, `body`, and `suggestion`) into three other diagnostic types:
`Diagnostic`, `DiagnosticMessage`, and `CacheMessage`.
Instead of deferring to an internal `DiagnosticKind`, both `Diagnostic`
and `DiagnosticMessage` now have their own macro-generated `AsRule`
implementations.
This should make both https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18051 and
another follow-up PR changing the type of `name` on `CacheMessage`
easier since its type will be able to change separately from
`Diagnostic` and `DiagnosticMessage`.
## Test Plan
Existing tests
The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `SIM103` (#15584 )
### Unsafe Fix Example
```python
class Foo:
def __eq__(self, other):
return 1
def foo():
if Foo() == 1:
return True
return False
def foo_fix():
return Foo() == 1
print(foo()) # True
print(foo_fix()) # 1
```
### Note
I updated the code snippet example, because I thought it was cool to
have a correct example, i.e., that I can paste inside the playground and
it works :-)
Fixes#18069
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This PR addresses a bug in the `flake8-simplify` rule `SIM905`
(split-static-string) where `str.split(maxsplit=0)` and
`str.rsplit(maxsplit=0)` produced incorrect results for empty strings or
strings starting/ending with whitespace. The fix ensures that the
linting rule's suggested replacements now align with Python's native
behavior for these specific `maxsplit=0` scenarios.
## Test Plan
1. Added new test cases to the existing
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/flake8_simplify/SIM905.py`
fixture to cover the scenarios described in issue #18069.
2. Ran `cargo test -p ruff_linter`.
3. Verified and accepted the updated snapshots for `SIM905.py` using
`cargo insta review`. The new snapshots confirm the corrected behavior
for `maxsplit=0`.
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Similiar to https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17941.
`Replacement::Name` was designed for linting only. Now, we also want to
fix the user code. It would be easier to replace it with a better
AutoImport struct whenever possible.
On the other hand, `AIR301` and `AIR311` contain attribute changes that
can still use a struct like `Replacement::Name`. To reduce the
confusion, I also updated it as `Replacement::AttrName`
Some of the original `Replacement::Name` has been replaced as
`Replacement::Message` as they're not directly mapping and the message
has now been moved to `help`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixtures have been updated
The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `RUF007` (#15584 )
It seems that the fix was always marked as unsafe #14401
## Unsafety example
This first example is a little extreme. In fact, the class `Foo`
overrides the `__getitem__` method but in a very special, way. The
difference lies in the fact that `zip(letters, letters[1:])` call the
slice `letters[1:]` which is behaving weird in this case, while
`itertools.pairwise(letters)` call just `__getitem__(0), __getitem__(1),
...` and so on.
Note that the diagnostic is emitted: [playground](https://play.ruff.rs)
I don't know if we want to mention this problem, as there is a subtile
bug in the python implementation of `Foo` which make the rule unsafe.
```python
from dataclasses import dataclass
import itertools
@dataclass
class Foo:
letters: str
def __getitem__(self, index):
return self.letters[index] + "_foo"
letters = Foo("ABCD")
zip_ = zip(letters, letters[1:])
for a, b in zip_:
print(a, b) # A_foo B, B_foo C, C_foo D, D_foo _
pair = itertools.pairwise(letters)
for a, b in pair:
print(a, b) # A_foo B_foo, B_foo C_foo, C_foo D_foo
```
This other example is much probable.
here, `itertools.pairwise` was shadowed by a costume function
[(playground)](https://play.ruff.rs)
```python
from dataclasses import dataclass
from itertools import pairwise
def pairwise(a):
return []
letters = "ABCD"
zip_ = zip(letters, letters[1:])
print([(a, b) for a, b in zip_]) # [('A', 'B'), ('B', 'C'), ('C', 'D')]
pair = pairwise(letters)
print(pair) # []
```
<!--
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
Fixes#17599.
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
If a try-catch block guards the names, we don't raise warnings. During
this change, I discovered that some of the replacement types were
missed. Thus, I extend the fix to types other than AutoImport as well
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Test fixtures are added and updated.
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
The existing implementation of RUF060 (InEmptyCollection) is not
recursive, meaning that although set([]) results in an empty collection,
the existing code fails it because set is taking an argument.
The updated implementation allows set and frozenset to take empty
collection as positional argument (which results in empty
set/frozenset).
## Test Plan
Added test cases for recursive cases + updated snapshot (see RUF060.py).
---------
Co-authored-by: Marcus Näslund <marcus.naslund@kognity.com>
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#17776.
This PR also handles all other `PTH*` rules that don't support file
descriptors.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Update existing tests.
<!--
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
We can only guarantee the safety of the autofix for number literals, all
other cases may change the runtime behaviour of the program or introduce
a syntax error. For the cases reported in the issue that would result in
a syntax error, I disabled the autofix.
Follow-up of #17661.
Fixes#16472.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
