<!--
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
/closes #2331
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
update snapshots
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
This PR removes the last two places we were using `NoqaCode::rule` in
`linter.rs` (see
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391#discussion_r2154637329 and
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391#discussion_r2154649726) by
checking whether fixes are actually desired before adding them to a
`DiagnosticGuard`. I implemented this by storing a `Violation`'s `Rule`
on the `DiagnosticGuard` so that we could check if it was enabled in the
embedded `LinterSettings` when trying to set a fix.
All of the corresponding `set_fix` methods on `OldDiagnostic` were now
unused (except in tests where I just set `.fix` directly), so I moved
these to the guard instead of keeping both sets.
The very last place where we were using `NoqaCode::rule` was in the
cache. I just reverted this to parsing the `Rule` from the name. I had
forgotten to update the comment there anyway. Hopefully this doesn't
cause too much of a perf hit.
In terms of binary size, we're back down almost to where `main` was two
days ago
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391#discussion_r2155034320):
```
41,559,344 bytes for main 2 days ago
41,669,840 bytes for #18391
41,653,760 bytes for main now (after #18391 merged)
41,602,224 bytes for this branch
```
Only 43 kb up, but that shouldn't all be me this time :)
## Test Plan
Existing tests and benchmarks on this PR
## Summary
Resolves#18165
Added pattern `["sys", "version_info", "major"]` to the existing matches
for `sys.version_info` to ensure consistent handling of both the base
object and its major version attribute.
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run` and `cargo insta test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
<!--
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
/closes #17424
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
The fix would create a syntax error if there wasn't a space between the
`in` keyword and the following expression.
For example:
```python
for country, stars in(zip)(flag_stars.keys(), flag_stars.values()):...
```
I also noticed that the tests for `SIM911` were note being run, so I
fixed that.
Fixes#18776
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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 fixes `PLC2801` autofix creating a syntax error due to lack of
padding if it is directly after a keyword.
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18813
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Part of #15584
This adds a `Fix safety` section to [useless-object-inheritance
(UP004)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/useless-object-inheritance/#useless-object-inheritance-up004)
I could not track down the original PR as this rule is so old it has
gone through several large ruff refactors.
No reasoning is given on the unsafety in the PR/code.
The unsafety is determined here:
f24e650dfd/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/useless_class_metaclass_type.rs (L76-L80)
Unsafe fix demonstration:
[playground](https://play.ruff.rs/12b24eb4-d7a5-4ae0-93bb-492d64967ae3)
```py
class A( # will be deleted
object
):
...
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Part of #15584
This adds a `Fix safety` section to [unnecessary-future-import
(UP010)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/unnecessary-future-import/#unnecessary-future-import-up010)
The unsafety is determined here:
d9266284df/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/unnecessary_future_import.rs (L128-L132)
Unsafe code example:
[playground](https://play.ruff.rs/c07d8c41-9ab8-4b86-805b-8cf482d450d9)
```py
from __future__ import (print_function,# ...
__annotations__) # ...
```
Edit: It looks like there was already a PR for this, #17490, but I
missed it since they said `UP029` instead of `UP010` :/
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected
<!--
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
I've also found another bug while fixing this, where the diagnostic
would not trigger if the `len` call argument variable was shadowed. This
fixed a few false negatives in the test cases.
Example:
```python
fruits = []
fruits = []
if len(fruits): # comment
...
```
Fixes#18811Fixes#18812
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <crmarsh416@gmail.com>
A little bit of cleanup for consistency's sake: we move all the helpers
modules to a consistent location, and update the import paths when
needed. In the case of `refurb` there were two helpers modules, so we
just merged them.
Happy to revert the last commit if people are okay with `super::super` I
just thought it looked a little silly.
<!--
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
Fix `PYI041`'s fix turning `None | int | None | float` into `None | None
| float`, which raises a `TypeError` when executed.
The fix consists of making sure that the merged super-type is inserted
where the first type that is merged was before.
## Test Plan
Tests have been expanded with examples from the issue.
## Related Issue
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18298
<!--
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 https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18726 by also checking if
its a literal and not only that it is truthy. See also the first comment
in the issue.
It would have been nice to check for inheritance of BaseException but I
figured that is not possible yet...
## Test Plan
I added a few tests for valid input to exc_info
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
I noticed this since my code for finding missing safety fix sections
flagged it, there is a missing `/` causing part of the new changes to be
a normal comment instead of a doc comment
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no functionality/tests affected
## Summary
Ignore `__init__.py` files in `useless-import-alias` (PLC0414).
See discussion in #18365 and #6294: we want to allow redundant aliases
in `__init__.py` files, as they're almost always intentional explicit
re-exports.
Closes#18365Closes#6294
---------
Co-authored-by: Dylan <dylwil3@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR avoids one of the three calls to `NoqaCode::rule` from
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391 by applying per-file
ignores in the `LintContext`. To help with this, it also replaces all
direct uses of `LinterSettings.rules.enabled` with a
`LintContext::enabled` (or `Checker::enabled`, which defers to its
context) method. There are still some direct accesses to
`settings.rules`, but as far as I can tell these are not in a part of
the code where we can really access a `LintContext`. I believe all of
the code reachable from `check_path`, where the replaced per-file ignore
code was, should be converted to the new methods.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, with a single snapshot updated for RUF100, which I think
actually shows a more accurate diagnostic message now.
<!--
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
I also noticed that the tests for SIM911 were note being run, so I fixed
that.
Fixes#18777
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
While reading the docs I noticed this paragraph on `PERF401`. It was
added in the same PR that the bug with `:=` was fixed, #15050, but don't
know why it was added. The fix should already take care of adding the
parenthesis, so having this paragraph in the docs is just confusing
since it sounds like the user has to do something.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected
## Summary
Fixes false positives (and incorrect autofixes) in `nested-min-max`
(`PLW3301`) when the outer `min`/`max` call only has a single argument.
Previously the rule would flatten:
```python
min(min([2, 3], [4, 1]))
```
into `min([2, 3], [4, 1])`, changing the semantics. The rule now skips
any nested call when the outer call has only one positional argument.
The pylint fixture and snapshot were updated accordingly.
## Test Plan
Ran Ruff against the updated `nested_min_max.py` fixture:
```shell
cargo run -p ruff -- check crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/nested_min_max.py --no-cache --select=PLW3301 --preview
```
to verify that `min(min([2, 3], [4, 1]))` and `max(max([2, 4], [3, 1]))`
are no longer flagged. Updated the fixture and snapshot; all other
existing warnings remain unchanged. The code compiles and the unit tests
pass.
---
This PR was generated by an AI system in collaboration with maintainers:
@carljm, @ntBre
Fixes#16163
---------
Signed-off-by: Gene Parmesan Thomas <201852096+gopoto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
Added `cls.__dict__.get('__annotations__')` check for Python 3.10+ and
Python < 3.10 with `typing-extensions` enabled.
Closes#17853
<!--
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
Added `cls.__dict__.get('__annotations__')` check for Python 3.10+ and
Python < 3.10 with `typing-extensions` enabled.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Part of #15584
This PR adds a fix safety section to `PIE794`
I could not track down when this rule was initially implemented/made
unsafe due how old it could be + multiple large refactors to `ruff`.
There is no comment/reasoning in the code given for the unsafety.
Here is a code example demonstrating why it should be unsafe, since
removing any of the assignments would change program behavior
[playground](https://play.ruff.rs/01004644-4259-4449-a581-5007cd59846a)
```py
class A:
x = 1
x = 2
print(x)
class B:
x = print(3)
x = print(4)
class C:
x = [1,2,3]
y = x
x = y[1]
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests affected.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dylan <dylwil3@gmail.com>
Essentially this PR ensures that when we do fixes like this:
```diff
- t"{set(f(x) for x in foo)}"
+ t"{ {f(x) for x in foo} }"
```
we are correctly adding whitespace around the braces.
This logic is already in place for f-strings and just needed to be
generalized to interpolated strings.
Summary
--
This PR unifies the remaining differences between `OldDiagnostic` and
`Message` (`OldDiagnostic` was only missing an optional `noqa_offset`
field) and
replaces `Message` with `OldDiagnostic`.
The biggest functional difference is that the combined `OldDiagnostic`
kind no
longer implements `AsRule` for an infallible conversion to `Rule`. This
was
pretty easy to work around with `is_some_and` and `is_none_or` in the
few places
it was needed. In `LintContext::report_diagnostic_if_enabled` we can
just use
the new `Violation::rule` method, which takes care of most cases.
Most of the interesting changes are in [this
range](8156992540)
before I started renaming.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
Future Work
--
I think it's time to start shifting some of these fields to the new
`Diagnostic`
kind. I believe we want `Fix` for sure, but I'm less sure about the
others. We
may want to keep a thin wrapper type here anyway to implement a `rule`
method,
so we could leave some of these fields on that too.
