## Summary
This PR re-introduces the control-flow graph implementation which was
first introduced in #5384, and then removed in #9463 due to not being
feature complete. Mainly, it lacked the ability to process
`try`-`except` blocks, along with some more minor bugs.
Closes#8958 and #8959 and #14881.
## Overview of Changes
I will now highlight the major changes implemented in this PR, in order
of implementation.
1. Introduced a post-processing step in loop handling to find any
`continue` or `break` statements within the loop body and redirect them
appropriately.
2. Introduced a loop-continue block which is always placed at the end of
loop blocks, and ensures proper looping regardless of the internal logic
of the block. This resolves#8958.
3. Implemented `try` processing with the following logic (resolves
#8959):
1. In the example below the cfg first encounters a conditional
`ExceptionRaised` forking if an exception was (or will be) raised in the
try block. This is not possible to know (except for trivial cases) so we
assume both paths can be taken unconditionally.
2. Going down the `try` path the cfg goes `try`->`else`->`finally`
unconditionally.
3. Going down the `except` path the cfg will meet several conditional
`ExceptionCaught` which fork depending on the nature of the exception
caught. Again there's no way to know which exceptions may be raised so
both paths are assumed to be taken unconditionally.
4. If none of the exception blocks catch the exception then the cfg
terminates by raising a new exception.
5. A post-processing step is also implemented to redirect any `raises`
or `returns` within the blocks appropriately.
```python
def func():
try:
print("try")
except Exception:
print("Exception")
except OtherException as e:
print("OtherException")
else:
print("else")
finally:
print("finally")
```
```mermaid
flowchart TD
start(("Start"))
return(("End"))
block0[["`*(empty)*`"]]
block1["print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
block2["print(#quot;else#quot;)\n"]
block3["print(#quot;try#quot;)\n"]
block4[["Exception raised"]]
block5["print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)\n"]
block6["try:
print(#quot;try#quot;)
except Exception:
print(#quot;Exception#quot;)
except OtherException as e:
print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)
else:
print(#quot;else#quot;)
finally:
print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
block7["print(#quot;Exception#quot;)\n"]
block8["try:
print(#quot;try#quot;)
except Exception:
print(#quot;Exception#quot;)
except OtherException as e:
print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)
else:
print(#quot;else#quot;)
finally:
print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
block9["try:
print(#quot;try#quot;)
except Exception:
print(#quot;Exception#quot;)
except OtherException as e:
print(#quot;OtherException#quot;)
else:
print(#quot;else#quot;)
finally:
print(#quot;finally#quot;)\n"]
start --> block9
block9 -- "Exception raised" --> block8
block9 -- "else" --> block3
block8 -- "Exception" --> block7
block8 -- "else" --> block6
block7 --> block1
block6 -- "OtherException" --> block5
block6 -- "else" --> block4
block5 --> block1
block4 --> return
block3 --> block2
block2 --> block1
block1 --> block0
block0 --> return
```
6. Implemented `with` processing with the following logic:
1. `with` statements have no conditional execution (apart from the
hidden logic handling the enter and exit), so the block is assumed to
execute unconditionally.
2. The one exception is that exceptions raised within the block may
result in control flow resuming at the end of the block. Since it is not
possible know if an exception will be raised, or if it will be handled
by the context manager, we assume that execution always continues after
`with` blocks even if the blocks contain `raise` or `return` statements.
This is handled in a post-processing step.
## Test Plan
Additional test fixtures and control-flow fixtures were added.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@gmail.com>
This PR introduces three changes to `D403`, which has to do with
capitalizing the first word in a docstring.
1. The diagnostic and fix now skip leading whitespace when determining
what counts as "the first word".
2. The name has been changed to `first-word-uncapitalized` from
`first-line-capitalized`, for both clarity and compliance with our rule
naming policy.
3. The diagnostic message and documentation has been modified slightly
to reflect this.
Closes#14890
## Summary
Many core Airflow features have been deprecated and moved to Airflow
Providers since users might need to install an additional package (e.g.,
`apache-airflow-provider-fab==1.0.0`); a separate rule (AIR303) is
created for this.
As some of the changes only relate to the module/package moved, instead
of listing out all the functions, variables, and classes in a module or
a package, it warns the user to import from the new path instead of the
specific name.
The following is the ones that has been moved to
`apache-airflow-provider-fab==1.0.0`
* module moved
* `airflow.api.auth.backend.basic_auth` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.api.auth.backend.basic_auth`
* `airflow.api.auth.backend.kerberos_auth` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.api.auth.backend.kerberos_auth`
* `airflow.auth.managers.fab.api.auth.backend.kerberos_auth` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.api.auth.backend.kerberos_auth`
* `airflow.auth.managers.fab.security_manager.override` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.security_manager.override`
* classes (e.g., functions, classes) moved
* `airflow.www.security.FabAirflowSecurityManagerOverride` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.security_manager.override.FabAirflowSecurityManagerOverride`
* `airflow.auth.managers.fab.fab_auth_manager.FabAuthManager` →
`airflow.providers.fab.auth_manager.security_manager.FabAuthManager`
## Test Plan
A test fixture has been included for the rule.
## Summary
`PTH210` renamed to `invalid-pathlib-with-suffix` and extended to check for `.with_suffix(".")`. This caused the fix availability to be downgraded to "Sometimes", since there is no fix offered in this case.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Co-authored-by: Dylan <53534755+dylwil3@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
This PR implements new rule discussed
[here](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/discussions/14449).
In short, it searches for assert messages which were unintentionally
used as a expression to be matched against.
## Test Plan
`cargo test` and review of `ruff-ecosystem`
## Summary
- Expand some docs where they're unclear about the motivation, or assume
some knowledge that hasn't been introduced yet
- Add more links to external docs
- Rename PYI063 from `PrePep570PositionalArgument` to
`Pep484StylePositionalOnlyParameter`
- Rename the file `parenthesize_logical_operators.rs` to
`parenthesize_chained_operators.rs`, since the rule is called
`ParenthesizeChainedOperators`, not `ParenthesizeLogicalOperators`
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
These rules were implemented in January, have been very stable, and have
no open issues about them. They were highly requested by the community
prior to being implemented. Let's stabilise them!
## Test Plan
Ecosystem check on this PR.
## Summary
Implements `redundant-bool-literal`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
`cargo test`
The ecosystem results are all correct, but for `Airflow` the rule is not
relevant due to the use of overloading (and is marked as unsafe
correctly).
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
Resolves#13217.
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run` and `cargo insta test`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.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? -->
Related to #970. Implement [`shallow-copy-environ /
W1507`](https://pylint.readthedocs.io/en/stable/user_guide/messages/warning/shallow-copy-environ.html).
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Unit test
---------
Co-authored-by: Simon Brugman <sbrugman@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
Implementation for one of the rules in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/1348
Refurb only deals only with classes with a single base, however the rule
is valid for any base.
(`str, Enum` is common prior to `StrEnum`)
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
## Summary
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/13944
## Test Plan
Standard snapshot testing
flake8-simplify surprisingly only has a single test case
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
