## Summary
Part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/2331
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run flake8_use_pathlib`
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
This refactors the importer abstraction to use a shared
`Insertion`. This is mostly just moving some code around
with some slight tweaks.
The plan here is to keep the rest of the importing code
in `ruff_linter` and then write something ty-specific on
top of `Insertion`. This ends up sharing some code, but
not as much as would be ideal. In particular, the
`ruff_linter` imported is pretty tightly coupled with
ruff's semantic model. So to share the code, we'd need to
abstract over that.
<!--
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 implements F406
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/undefined-local-with-nested-import-star-usage/
as a semantic syntax error
## Test Plan
I have written inline tests as directed in #17412
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
- Convert panics to diagnostics with id `Panic`, severity `Fatal`, and
the error as the diagnostic message, annotated with a `Span` with empty
code block and no range.
- Updates the post-linting message diagnostic handling to track the
maximum severity seen, and then prints the "report a bug in ruff"
message only if the max severity was `Fatal`
This depends on the sorting changes since it creates diagnostics with no
range specified.
## Summary
Resolves#20266
Definition of the frozen dataclass attribute can be instantiation of a
nested frozen dataclass as well as a non-nested one.
### Problem explanation
The `function_call_in_dataclass_default` function is invoked during the
"defined scope" stage, after all scopes have been processed. At this
point, the semantic references the top-level scope. When
`SemanticModel::lookup_attribute` executes, it searches for bindings in
the top-level module scope rather than the class scope, resulting in an
error.
To solve this issue, the lookup should be evaluated through the class
scope.
## Test Plan
- Added test case from issue
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
## Summary
Fixes#19842
Prevent infinite loop with I002 and UP026
- Implement isort-aware handling for UP026 (deprecated mock import):
- Add CLI integration tests in crates/ruff/tests/lint.rs:
## Test Plan
I have added two integration tests
`pyupgrade_up026_respects_isort_required_import_fix` and
`pyupgrade_up026_respects_isort_required_import_from_fix` in
`crates/ruff/tests/lint.rs`.
## Summary
Resolves#20282
Makes the rule fix always unsafe, because the replacement may not be
semantically equivalent to the original expression, potentially changing
the behavior of the code.
Updated docstring with examples.
## Test Plan
- Added two tests from issue and regenerated the snapshot
---------
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
Fixes#20204
Recognize t-strings, generators, and lambdas in RUF016
- Accept boolean literals as valid index and slice bounds.
- Add TString, Generator, and Lambda to `CheckableExprType`.
- Expand RUF016.py fixture and update snapshots accordingly.
Our token-based rules and `noqa` extraction used an `Indexer` that kept
track of f-string ranges but not t-strings. We've updated the `Indexer`
and downstream uses thereof to handle both f-strings and t-strings.
Most of the diff is renaming and adding tests.
Note that much of the "new" logic gets to be naive because the lexer has
already ensured that f and t-string "starts" are paired with their
respective "ends", even amidst nesting and so on.
Finally: one could imagine wanting to know if a given interpolated
string range corresponds to an f-string or a t-string, but I didn't find
a place where we actually needed this.
Closes#20310
## Summary
This is the GitHub analog to #20117. This PR prepares to add a GitHub
output format to ty by moving the implementation from `ruff_linter` to
`ruff_db`. Hopefully this one is a bit easier to review
commit-by-commit. Almost all of the refactoring this time is in the
first commit, then the second commit adds the new `OutputFormat` variant
and moves the file into `ruff_db`. The third commit is just a small
touch up to use a private method that accommodates ty files so that we
can run the tests and update/move the snapshots.
I had to push a fourth commit to fix and test diagnostics without a
span/file.
## Test Plan
Existing tests
<!--
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? -->
Fixes#20235
• Fix `RUF102` to properly handle rule redirects when validating noqa
codes
• Update `code_is_valid` to check redirect targets before determining
validity
• Add test case for rule redirects (TCH002 in this case)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have added a test case for rule redirects to
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/RUF102.py`.
<!--
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#18349
After this change:
- All deprecated rules are deselected by default
- They are only selected if the user specifically selects them by code,
e.g. `--select UP038`
- Thus, `--select ALL --select UP --select UP0` won't select the
deprecated rule UP038
- Documented the change in version policy. From now on, deprecating a
rule should increase the minor version
## Test Plan
Integration tests in "integration_tests.rs"
Also tested with a temporary test package:
```
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP038
warning: Rule `UP038` is deprecated and will be removed in a future release.
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
UP038 Use `X | Y` in `isinstance` call instead of `(X, Y)`
--> main.py:2:11
|
1 | def main():
2 | print(isinstance(25, (str, int)))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: Convert to `X | Y`
Found 1 error.
No fixes available (1 hidden fix can be enabled with the `--unsafe-fixes` option).
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP03
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP0
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select UP
warning: Detected debug build without --no-cache.
All checks passed!
~> ../../ruff/target/debug/ruff.exe check --select ALL
# warnings and errors, but because of other errors, UP038 was deselected
```
- **Stabilize `airflow3-suggested-update` (`AIR311`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-suggested-to-move-to-provider` (`AIR312`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-removal` (`AIR301`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow3-moved-to-provider` (`AIR302`)**
- **Stabilize `airflow-dag-no-schedule-argument` (`AIR002`)**
I put this all in one PR to make it easier to double check with @Lee-W
before we merge this. I also made a few minor documentation changes and
updated one error message that I want to make sure are okay. But for the
most part this just moves the rules from `RuleGroup::Preview` to
`RuleGroup::Stable`!
Fixes#17749
This stabilizes the behavior introduced in #16565 which (roughly) tries
to match an import like `import a.b.c` to an actual directory path
`a/b/c` in order to label it as first-party, rather than simply looking
for a directory `a`.
Mainly this affects the sorting of imports in the presence of namespace
packages, but a few other rules are affected as well.
This one has been a bit contentious in the past. It usually uncovers
~700 ecosystem hits. See:
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16657
- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16690
But I think there's consensus that it's okay to merge as-is. We'd love
an
autofix since it's so common, but we can't reliably tell what a user
meant. The
pattern is ambiguous after all 😆
This is the first rule that actually needed its test case relocated, but
the
docs looked good.
## Summary
This PR Removes deprecated UP038 as per instructed in #18727closes#18727
## Test Plan
I have run tests non of them failing
One Question i have is do we have to document that UP038 is removed?
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
closes#7710
## Test Plan
It is is removal so i don't think we have to add tests otherwise i have
followed test plan mentioned in contributing.md
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Summary
--
Rule and test/snapshot updated, the docs look good
My one hesitation here is that we could hold off stabilizing the rule
until its fix is also ready for stabilization, but this is also the only
preview PTH rule, so I think it's okay to stabilize the rule and later
(probably in the next minor release) stabilize the fixes together.
The tests looked good. For the docs, I added a `## See also` section
pointing to
the closely-related F841 (unused-variable) and the corresponding section
to F841
pointing back to RUF059. It seems like you'd probably want both of these
active
or at least to know about the other when reading the docs.
## Summary
Resolves#19357
Skip UP008 diagnostic for `builtins.super(P, self)` calls when
`__class__` is not referenced locally, preventing incorrect fixes.
**Note:** I haven't found concrete information about which cases
`__class__` will be loaded into the scope. Let me know if anyone has
references, it would be useful to enhance the implementation. I did a
lot of tests to determine when `__class__` is loaded. Considered
sources:
1. [Python doc
super](https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#super)
2. [Python doc classes](https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html)
3. [pep-3135](https://peps.python.org/pep-3135/#specification)
As I understand it, Python will inject at runtime into local scope a
`__class__` variable if it detects references to `super` or `__class__`.
This allows calling `super()` and passing appropriate parameters.
However, the compiler doesn't do the same for `builtins.super`, so we
need to somehow introduce `__class__` into the local scope.
I figured out `__class__` will be in scope with valid value when two
conditions are met:
1. `super` or `__class__` names have been loaded within function scope
4. `__class__` is not overridden.
I think my solution isn't elegant, so I would be appreciate a detailed
review.
## Test Plan
Added 19 test cases, updated snapshots.
---------
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
- Renames functions to drop `expect_` from names.
- Make functions return `Option<LineColumn>` to appropriately signal
when range is not available.
- Update existing consumers to use `unwrap_or_default()`. Uncertain if
there are better fallback behaviors for individual consumers.
Specifically, the [`if_not_else`] lint will sometimes flag
code to change the order of `if` and `else` bodies if this
would allow a `!` to be removed. While perhaps tasteful in
some cases, there are many cases in my experience where this
bows to other competing concerns that impact readability.
(Such as the relative sizes of the `if` and `else` bodies,
or perhaps an ordering that just makes the code flow in a
more natural way.)
[`if_not_else`]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/if_not_else
<!--
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
Noticed this was not escaped when writing a project that parses the
result of `ruff rule --outputformat json`. This is visible here:
<https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/mixed-case-variable-in-global-scope/#why-is-this-bad>
## Test Plan
documentation only
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
