<!--
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? -->
As discussed in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/14626#issuecomment-2766146129,
we're to separate suggested changes from required changes.
The following symbols has been moved to AIR312 from AIR302. They still
work in Airflow 3.0, but they're suggested to be changed as they're
expected to be removed in future version
```python
from airflow.hooks.filesystem import FSHook
from airflow.hooks.package_index import PackageIndexHook
from airflow.hooks.subprocess import (SubprocessHook, SubprocessResult, working_directory)
from airflow.operators.bash import BashOperator
from airflow.operators.datetime import BranchDateTimeOperator, target_times_as_dates
from airflow.operators.trigger_dagrun import TriggerDagRunLink, TriggerDagRunOperator
from airflow.operators.empty import EmptyOperator
from airflow.operators.latest_only import LatestOnlyOperator
from airflow.operators.python import (BranchPythonOperator, PythonOperator, PythonVirtualenvOperator, ShortCircuitOperator)
from airflow.operators.weekday import BranchDayOfWeekOperator
from airflow.sensors.date_time import DateTimeSensor, DateTimeSensorAsync
from airflow.sensors.external_task import ExternalTaskMarker, ExternalTaskSensor, ExternalTaskSensorLink
from airflow.sensors.filesystem import FileSensor
from airflow.sensors.time_sensor import TimeSensor, TimeSensorAsync
from airflow.sensors.time_delta import TimeDeltaSensor, TimeDeltaSensorAsync, WaitSensor
from airflow.sensors.weekday import DayOfWeekSensor
from airflow.triggers.external_task import DagStateTrigger, WorkflowTrigger
from airflow.triggers.file import FileTrigger
from airflow.triggers.temporal import DateTimeTrigger, TimeDeltaTrigger
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixture has been updated acccordingly
---------
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?
-->
Closes#17084
## Summary
This PR adds a new rule (RUF102) to detect and fix invalid rule codes in
`noqa` comments.
Invalid rule codes in `noqa` directives serve no purpose and may
indicate outdated code suppressions.
This extends the previous behaviour originating from
`crates/ruff_linter/src/noqa.rs` which would only emit a warnigs.
With this rule a `--fix` is available.
The rule:
1. Analyzes all `noqa` directives to identify invalid rule codes
2. Provides autofix functionality to:
- Remove the entire comment if all codes are invalid
- Remove only the invalid codes when mixed with valid codes
3. Preserves original comment formatting and whitespace where possible
Example cases:
- `# noqa: XYZ111` → Remove entire comment (keep empty line)
- `# noqa: XYZ222, XYZ333` → Remove entire comment (keep empty line)
- `# noqa: F401, INVALID123` → Keep only valid codes (`# noqa: F401`)
## Test Plan
- Added tests in
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/RUF102.py` covering
different example cases.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Notes
- This does not handle cases where parsing fails. E.g. `# noqa:
NON_EXISTENT, ANOTHER_INVALID` causes a `LexicalError` and the
diagnostic is not propagated and we cannot handle the diagnostic. I am
also unsure what proper `fix` handling would be and making the user
aware we don't understand the codes is probably the best bet.
- The rule is added to the Preview rule group as it's a new addition
## Questions
- Should we remove the warnings, now that we have a rule?
- Is the current fix behavior appropriate for all cases, particularly
the handling of whitespace and line deletions?
- I'm new to the codebase; let me know if there are rule utilities which
could have used but didn't.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
Following up the discussion in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/14626#issuecomment-2766548545,
we're to reorganize airflow rules. Before this discussion happens, we
combine required changes and suggested changes in to one single error
code.
This PR first rename the original error code to the new error code as we
discussed. We will gradually extract suggested changes out of AIR301 and
AIR302 to AIR311 and AIR312 in the following PRs
## Test Plan
Except for file, error code rename, the test case should work as it used
to be.
## Summary
Unlike other AIR3XX rules, this best practice can be applied to Airflow
1 and Airflow 2 as well. Thus, we think it might make sense for use to
move it to AIR002 so that the first number of the error align to Airflow
version as possible to reduce confusion
## Test Plan
the test fixture has been updated
## Summary
Deprecate `S320` because defusedxml has deprecated there `lxml` module
and `lxml` has been hardened since.
flake8-bandit has removed their implementation as well
(https://github.com/PyCQA/bandit/pull/1212).
Addresses https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/13707
## Test Plan
I verified that selecting `S320` prints a warning and fails if the
preview mode is enabled.
## Summary
This PR deprecates UP038. Using PEP 604 syntax in `isinstance` and
`issubclass` calls isn't a recommended pattern (or community agreed best
practice)
and it negatively impacts performance.
Resolves https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7871
## Test Plan
I tested that selecting `UP038` results in a warning in no-preview mode
and an error in preview mode
Summary
--
Stabilizes TC006. The test was already in the right place.
Test Plan
--
No open issues or PRs. The last related [issue] was closed on
2025-02-09.
[issue]: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16037
Summary
--
Stabilizes S704, which is also being recoded from RUF035 in 0.10.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests with `PreviewMode` removed from the settings.
There was one issue closed on 2024-12-20 calling the rule noisy and
asking for a config option, but the option was added and then there were
no more issues or PRs.
Summary
--
Stabilizes DTZ901, renames the rule function to match the rule name,
removes the `preview_rules` test, and handles some nits in the docs
(mention `min` first to match the rule name too).
Test Plan
--
1 closed issue on 2024-11-12, 4 days after the rule was added. No issues
since
Summary
--
Stabilizes RUF041. The tests are already in the right place, and the
docs look good.
Test Plan
--
0 issues, 1 [PR] fixing nested literals and unions the day after the
rule was added. No changes since then
I wonder if the fix in that PR could be relevant for
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16639, where I noticed a
potential issue with `Union`. It could be unrelated, though.
[PR]: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/14641
Summary
--
Stabilizes PTH210. Tests and docs looked good.
Test Plan
--
Mentioned in 1 open issue around Python 3.14 support (`"."` becomes a
valid suffix in 3.14). Otherwise no issues or PRs since 2024-12-12, 6
days after the rule was added.
Summary
--
Stabilizes RUF051. The tests and docs looked good.
Test Plan
--
1 closed documentation issue from 4 days after the rule was added and 1
typo fix from the same day it was added, but no other issues or PRs.
Summary
--
Stabilizes LOG015. The tests and docs looked good.
Test Plan
--
1 closed documentation issue from 4 days after the rule was added, but
no other issues or PRs.
Summary
--
Stabilizes RUF048 and moves its test to the right place. The docs look
good.
Test Plan
--
0 closed or open issues. There was 1 [PR] related to an extension to the
rule, but it was closed without comment.
[PR]: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/14701
Summary
--
Stabilizes RUF046 and moves its test to the right place. The docs look
good.
Test Plan
--
2 closed newline/whitespace issues from early January and 1 closed issue
about really being multiple rules, but otherwise no recent issues or
PRs.
Summary
--
Stabilizes UP044, renames the module to match the rule name, and removes
the `PreviewMode` from the test settings.
Test Plan
--
2 closed issues in November, just after the rule was added, otherwise no
issues
Summary
--
Stabilizes SIM905 and adds a small addition to the docs. The test was
already in the right place.
Test Plan
--
No issues except 2 recent, general issues about whitespace
normalization.
Summary
--
Stabilizes PLC1802. The tests were already in the right place, and I
just tidied the docs a little bit.
Test Plan
--
1 issue closed 4 days after the rule was added, no other issues
Summary
--
Stabilizes PLW1507. The tests were already in the right place, and I
just tidied the docs a little bit.
Test Plan
--
1 issue from 2 weeks ago but just suggesting to mark the fix unsafe. The
shallow vs deep copy *does* change the program behavior, just usually in
a preferable way.
## Summary
Stabilizes FAST003, completing the group with FAST001 and FAST002.
## Test Plan
Last bug fix (false positive) was fixed on 2025-01-13, almost 2 months
ago.
The test case was already in the right place.
## Summary
Stabilizes C420 for the 0.10 release.
## Test Plan
No open issues or PRs (except a general issue about [string
normalization](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16579)). The
last (and only) false-negative bug fix was over a month ago.
The tests for this rule were already not on the `preview_rules` test, so
I just changed the `RuleGroup`. The documentation looked okay to me.
## Summary
`RUF035` has been backported into bandit as `S704` in this
[PR](https://github.com/PyCQA/bandit/pull/1225)
This moves the rule and its corresponding setting to the `flake8-bandit`
category
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run`
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Split from F841 following discussion in #8884.
Fixes#8884.
<!--
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? -->
Add a new rule for unused assignments in tuples. Remove similar behavior
from F841.
## Test Plan
Adapt F841 tests and move them over to the new rule.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
Resolves#12321.
The physical-line-based `RUF054` checks for form feed characters that
are preceded by only tabs and spaces, but not any other characters,
including form feeds.
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run` and `cargo insta test`.
## Summary
This is a new rule to implement the renaming of PEP 695 type parameters
with leading underscores after they have (presumably) been converted
from standalone type variables by either UP046 or UP047. Part of #15642.
I'm not 100% sure the fix is always safe, but I haven't come up with any
counterexamples yet. `Renamer` seems pretty precise, so I don't think
the usual issues with comments apply.
I initially tried writing this as a rule that receives a `Stmt` rather
than a `Binding`, but in that case the
`checker.semantic().current_scope()` was the global scope, rather than
the scope of the type parameters as I needed. Most of the other rules
using `Renamer` also used `Binding`s, but it does have the downside of
offering separate diagnostics for each parameter to rename.
## Test Plan
New snapshot tests for UP049 alone and the combination of UP046, UP049,
and PYI018.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR extends our [PEP 695](https://peps.python.org/pep-0695) handling
from the type aliases handled by `UP040` to generic function and class
parameters, as suggested in the latter two examples from #4617:
```python
# Input
T = TypeVar("T", bound=float)
class A(Generic[T]):
...
def f(t: T):
...
# Output
class A[T: float]:
...
def f[T: float](t: T):
...
```
I first implemented this as part of `UP040`, but based on a brief
discussion during a very helpful pairing session with @AlexWaygood, I
opted to split them into rules separate from `UP040` and then also
separate from each other. From a quick look, and based on [this
issue](https://github.com/asottile/pyupgrade/issues/836), I'm pretty
sure neither of these rules is currently in pyupgrade, so I just took
the next available codes, `UP046` and `UP047`.
The last main TODO, noted in the rule file and in the fixture, is to
handle generic method parameters not included in the class itself, `S`
in this case:
```python
T = TypeVar("T")
S = TypeVar("S")
class Foo(Generic[T]):
def bar(self, x: T, y: S) -> S: ...
```
but Alex mentioned that that might be okay to leave for a follow-up PR.
I also left a TODO about handling multiple subclasses instead of bailing
out when more than one is present. I'm not sure how common that would
be, but I can still handle it here, or follow up on that too.
I think this is unrelated to the PR, but when I ran `cargo dev
generate-all`, it removed the rule code `PLW0101` from
`ruff.schema.json`. It seemed unrelated, so I left that out, but I
wanted to mention it just in case.
## Test Plan
New test fixture, `cargo nextest run`
Closes#4617, closes#12542
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
Implements upstream diagnostics `PT029`, `PT030`, `PT031` that function
as pytest.warns corollaries of `PT010`, `PT011`, `PT012` respectively.
Most of the implementation and documentation is designed to mirror those
existing diagnostics.
Closes#14239
## Test Plan
Tests for `PT029`, `PT030`, `PT031` largely copied from `PT010`,
`PT011`, `PT012` respectively.
`cargo nextest run`
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
Stabilise [`slice-to-remove-prefix-or-suffix`](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/slice-to-remove-prefix-or-suffix/) (`FURB188`) for the Ruff 0.9 release.
This is a stylistic rule, but I think it's a pretty uncontroversial one. There are no open issues or PRs regarding it and it's been in preview for a while now.
## Summary
Adds `class-as-data-structure` rule (`B903`). Also compare pylint's `too-few-public-methods` (`PLR0903`).
Took some creative liberty with this by allowing the class to have any
decorators or base classes. There are years-old issues on pylint that
don't approve of the strictness when it comes to these things.
Especially considering that dataclass is a decorator and namedtuple _can
be_ a base class. I feel ignoring those explicitly is redundant all
things considered, but it's not a hill I'm willing to die on!
See: #970
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@gmail.com>
