<!--
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? -->
First contribution so please let me know if I've made a mistake
anywhere. This was aimed to fix#19982, it adds the isolation level to
PYI021 to in the same style as the PIE790 rule.
fixes: #19982
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I added a case to the PYI021.pyi file where the two rules are present as
there wasn't a case with them both interacting, using the minimal
reproducible example that @ntBre created on the issue (I think I got the
`# ERROR` markings wrong, so please let me know how to fix that if I
did).
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
Adds a new rule to find and report use of `os.path` or `pathlib.Path` in
async functions.
Issue: #8451
## Test Plan
Using `cargo insta test`
<!--
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#12734
I have started with simply checking if any arguments that are providing
extra values to the log message are calls to `str` or `repr`, as
suggested in the linked issue. There was a concern that this could cause
false positives and the check should be more explicit. I am happy to
look into that if I have some further examples to work with.
If this is the accepted solution then there are more cases to add to the
test and it should possibly also do test for the same behavior via the
`extra` keyword.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I have added a new test case and python file to flake8_logging_format
with examples of this anti-pattern.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Fixes#20440
Fix B004 to skip invalid hasattr/getattr calls
- Add argument validation for `hasattr` and `getattr`
- Skip B004 rule when function calls have invalid argument patterns
## Summary
Implements new rule `B912` that requires the `strict=` argument for
`map(...)` calls with two or more iterables on Python 3.14+, following
the same pattern as `B905` for `zip()`.
Closes#20057
---------
Co-authored-by: dylwil3 <dylwil3@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
Resolves#20033
## Test Plan
unit tests added to the new split function, existing snapshot test
updated.
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#19887
- flynt(FLY002): When joining only string constants, upgrade raw
single-quoted strings to raw triple-quoted if the resulting
content contains a newline.
- Choose a safe triple-quote delimiter by switching to the opposite
quote style if the preferred triple appears inside the
content.
- Update FLY002 snapshot to include the `\n'.join([r'line1','line2'])`
case.
## Test Plan
I've added one test case to FLY002.py.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#20255
Mark single-item-membership-test fixes as always unsafe
- Always set `Applicability::Unsafe` for FURB171 fixes
- Update “Fix safety” docs to reflect always-unsafe behavior
- Expand tests (not in, nested set/frozenset, commented args)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have added new test cases to
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/refurb/FURB171_0.py` and
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/refurb/FURB171_1.py`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/20134
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run flake8_use_pathlib`
---------
Co-authored-by: Dan Parizher <danparizher@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## 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>
## 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
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
<!--
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`.
## 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>
<!--
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? -->
### Why
Removal should be grouped into the same category. It doesn't matter
whether it's from a provider or not (and the only case we used to have
was not anyway).
`ProviderReplacement` is used to indicate that we have a replacement and
we might need to install an extra Python package to cater to it.
### What
Move `airflow.operators.postgres_operator.Mapping` from AIR302 to AIR301
and get rid of `ProviderReplace::None`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Update the test fixtures accordingly in the first commit and reorganize
them in the second commit
<!--
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
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/yield-from-in-async-function/ as a
syntax semantic error
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I have written a simple inline test as directed in
[https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/17412](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/17412)
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <alex.waygood@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
update the argument `datasets` as `assets`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update fixture accordingly
This pull request fixes the bug described in issue
[#19153](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/19153).
The issue occurred when `PERF403` incorrectly flagged cases involving
tuple unpacking in a for loop. For example:
```python
def f():
v = {}
for (o, p), x in [("op", "x")]:
v[x] = o, p
```
This code was wrongly suggested to be rewritten into a dictionary
comprehension, which changes the semantics.
Changes in this PR:
Updated the `PERF403` rule to correctly handle tuple unpacking in loop
targets.
Added regression tests to ensure this case (and similar ones) are no
longer flagged incorrectly.
Why:
This ensures that `PERF403` only triggers when a dictionary
comprehension is semantically equivalent to the original loop,
preventing false positives.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
Adds new rule to catch use of builtins `input()` in async functions.
Issue #8451
## Test Plan
New snapshosts in `ASYNC250.py` with `cargo insta test`.
<!--
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#19664
Fix allowed unused imports matching for top-level modules.
I've simply replaced `from_dotted_name` with `user_defined`. Since
QualifiedName for imports is created in
crates/ruff_python_semantic/src/imports.rs, I guess it's acceptable to
use `user_defined` here. Please tell me if there is better way.
0c5089ed9e/crates/ruff_python_semantic/src/imports.rs (L62)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
I've added a snapshot test
`f401_allowed_unused_imports_top_level_module`.
## Summary
Adds new rule to find and report use of `httpx.Client` in synchronous
functions.
See issue #8451
## Test Plan
New snapshots for `ASYNC212.py` with `cargo insta test`.
## Summary
Fixes#19581
I decided to add in a `indent_first_line` function into
[`textwrap.rs`](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/main/crates/ruff_python_trivia/src/textwrap.rs),
as it solely focuses on text manipulation utilities. It follows the same
design as `indent()`, and there may be situations in the future where it
can be reused as well.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Extend the following rules.
### AIR311
* `airflow.sensors.base.BaseSensorOperator` →
airflow.sdk.bases.sensor.BaseSensorOperator`
* `airflow.sensors.base.PokeReturnValue` →
airflow.sdk.bases.sensor.PokeReturnValue`
* `airflow.sensors.base.poke_mode_only` →
airflow.sdk.bases.sensor.poke_mode_only`
* `airflow.decorators.base.DecoratedOperator` →
airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.DecoratedOperator`
* `airflow.models.param.Param` → airflow.sdk.definitions.param.Param`
* `airflow.decorators.base.DecoratedMappedOperator` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.DecoratedMappedOperator`
* `airflow.decorators.base.DecoratedOperator` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.DecoratedOperator`
* `airflow.decorators.base.TaskDecorator` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.TaskDecorator`
* `airflow.decorators.base.get_unique_task_id` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.get_unique_task_id`
* `airflow.decorators.base.task_decorator_factory` →
`airflow.sdk.bases.decorator.task_decorator_factory`
### AIR312
* `airflow.sensors.bash.BashSensor` →
`airflow.providers.standard.sensor.bash.BashSensor`
* `airflow.sensors.python.PythonSensor` →
`airflow.providers.standard.sensors.python.PythonSensor`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update the test fixture accordingly in the second commit and reorg in
the third
Closes#19302
<!--
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 adds an auto-fix for `Logging statement uses f-string` Ruff G004,
so users don't have to resolve it manually.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I ran the auto-fixes on a Python file locally and and it worked as
expected.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Summary
--
This PR aims to resolve (or help to resolve) #18442 and #19357 by
encoding the CPython semantics around the `__class__` cell in our
semantic model. Namely,
> `__class__` is an implicit closure reference created by the compiler
if any methods in a class body refer to either `__class__` or super.
from the Python
[docs](https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#creating-the-class-object).
As noted in the variant docs by @AlexWaygood, we don't fully model this
behavior, opting always to create the `__class__` cell binding in a new
`ScopeKind::DunderClassCell` around each method definition, without
checking if any method in the class body actually refers to `__class__`
or `super`.
As such, this PR fixes#18442 but not #19357.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests, plus the tests from #19783, which now pass without any
rule-specific code.
Note that we opted not to alter the behavior of F841 here because
flagging `__class__` in these cases still seems helpful. See the
discussion in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20048#discussion_r2296252395 and
in the test comments for more information.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Mikko Leppänen <mleppan23@gmail.com>
Adds a method to `TStringValue` to detect whether the t-string is empty
_as an iterable_. Note the subtlety here that, unlike f-strings, an
empty t-string is still truthy (i.e. `bool(t"")==True`).
Closes#19951
## Summary
Resolves#19561
Fixes the [unnecessary-future-import
(UP010)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/unnecessary-future-import/)
rule to correctly identify when imported __future__ modules are actually
used in the code, preventing false positives.
I assume there is no way to check usage in `analyze::statements`,
because we don't have any usage bindings for imports. To determine
unused imports, we have to fully scan the file to create bindings and
then check usage, similar to [unused-import
(F401)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/unused-import/#unused-import-f401).
So, `Rule::UnnecessaryFutureImport` was moved from the
`analyze::statements` to the `analyze::deferred_scopes` stage. This
caused the need to change the logic of future import handling to a
bindings-based approach.
Also, the diagnostic report was changed.
Before
```
|
1 | from __future__ import nested_scopes, generators
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ UP010
```
after
```
|
1 | from __future__ import nested_scopes, generators
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ UP010
```
I believe this is the correct way, because `generators` may be used, but
`nested_scopes` is not.
### Special case
I've found out about some specific case.
```python
from __future__ import nested_scopes
nested_scopes = 1
```
Here we can treat `nested_scopes` as an unused import because the
variable `nested_scopes` shadows it and we can safely remove the future
import (my fix does it).
But
[F401](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/unused-import/#unused-import-f401)
not triggered for such case
([sandbox](https://play.ruff.rs/296d9c7e-0f02-4659-b0c0-78cc21f3de76))
```
from foo import print_function
print_function = 1
```
In my mind, `print_function` here is an unused import and should be
deleted (my IDE highlight it). What do you think?
## Test Plan
Added test cases and snapshots:
- Split test file into separate _0 and _1 files for appropriate checks.
- Added test cases to verify fixes when future module are used.
---------
Co-authored-by: Igor Drokin <drokinii1017@gmail.com>
