At present, `ISC001` and `ISC002` flag concatenations like the following:
```py
"a" "b" # ISC001
"a" \
"b" # ISC002
```
However, multiline concatenations are allowed.
This PR adds a setting:
```toml
[tool.ruff.flake8-implicit-str-concat]
allow-multiline = false
```
Which extends `ISC002` to _also_ flag multiline concatenations, like:
```py
(
"a" # ISC002
"b"
)
```
Note that this is backwards compatible, as `allow-multiline` defaults to `true`.
Ruff supports more than `known-first-party`, `known-third-party`, `extra-standard-library`, and `src` nowadays.
Not sure if this is the best wording. Suggestions welcome!
Extend test fixture to verify the targeting.
Includes two "attribute docstrings" which per PEP 257 are not recognized by the Python bytecode compiler or available as runtime object attributes. They are not available for us either at time of writing, but include them for completeness anyway in case they one day are.
To enable ruff_dev to automatically generate the rule Markdown tables in
the README the ruff library contained the following function:
Linter::codes() -> Vec<RuleSelector>
which was slightly changed to `fn prefixes(&self) -> Prefixes` in
9dc66b5a65 to enable ruff_dev to split
up the Markdown tables for linters that have multiple prefixes
(pycodestyle has E & W, Pylint has PLC, PLE, PLR & PLW).
The definition of this method was however largely redundant with the
#[prefix] macro attributes in the Linter enum, which are used to
derive the Linter::parse_code function, used by the --explain command.
This commit removes the redundant Linter::prefixes by introducing a
same-named method with a different signature to the RuleNamespace trait:
fn prefixes(&self) -> &'static [&'static str];
As well as implementing IntoIterator<Rule> for &Linter. We extend the
extisting RuleNamespace proc macro to automatically derive both
implementations from the Linter enum definition.
To support the previously mentioned Markdown table splitting we
introduce a very simple hand-written method to the Linter impl:
fn categories(&self) -> Option<&'static [LinterCategory]>;
ParseCode was a fitting name since the trait only contained a single
parse_code method ... since we now however want to introduce an
additional `prefixes` method RuleNamespace is more fitting.
