## Summary
This PR addresses an issue for a variadic argument when involved in
argument type expansion of overload call evaluation.
The issue is that the expansion of the variadic argument could result in
argument list of different arity. For example, in `*args: tuple[int] |
tuple[int, str]`, the expansion would lead to the variadic argument
being unpacked into 1 and 2 element respectively. This means that the
parameter matching that was performed initially isn't sufficient and
each expanded argument list would need to redo the parameter matching
again.
This is currently done by redoing the parameter matching directly,
maintaining the state of argument forms (and the conflicting forms), and
updating the `Bindings` values if it changes.
Closes: astral-sh/ty#735
## Test Plan
Update existing mdtest.
This PR removes the `Constraints` trait. We removed the `bool`
implementation several weeks back, and are using `ConstraintSet`
everywhere. There have been discussions about trying to include the
reason for an assignability failure as part of the result, but that
there are no concrete plans to do so soon, and it's not clear that we'll
need the `Constraints` trait to do that. (We can ideally just update the
`ConstraintSet` type directly.)
In the meantime, this just complicates the code for no good reason.
This PR is a pure refactoring, and contains no behavioral changes.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## 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
Previously, `Type::object` would find the definition of the `object`
class in typeshed, load that in (to produce a `ClassLiteral` and
`ClassType`), and then create a `NominalInstance` of that class.
It's possible that we are using a typeshed that doesn't define `object`.
We will not be able to do much useful work with that kind of typeshed,
but it's still a possibility that we have to support at least without
panicking. Previously, we would handle this situation by falling back on
`Unknown`.
In most cases, that's a perfectly fine fallback! But `object` is also
our top type — the type of all values. `Unknown` is _not_ an acceptable
stand-in for the top type.
This PR adds a new `NominalInstance` variant for "instances of
`object`". Unlike other nominal instances, we do not need to load in
`object`'s `ClassType` to instantiate this variant. We will use this new
variant even when the current typeshed does not define an `object`
class, ensuring that we have a fully static representation of our top
type at all times.
There are several operations that need access to a nominal instance's
class, and for this new `object` variant we load it lazily only when
it's needed. That means this operation is now fallible, since this is
where the "typeshed doesn't define `object`" failure shows up.
This new approach also has the benefit of avoiding some salsa cycles
that were cropping up while I was debugging #20093, since the new
constraint set representation was trying to instantiate `Type::object`
while in the middle of processing its definition in typeshed. Cycle
handling was kicking in correctly and returning the `Unknown` fallback
mentioned above. But the constraint set implementation depends on
`Type::object` being a distinct and fully static type, highlighting that
this is a correctness fix, not just an optimization fix.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
Use `Type::Divergent` to avoid "too many iterations" panic on an
infinitely-nested tuple in an implicit instance attribute.
The regression here is from checking all tuple elements to see if they
contain a Divergent type. It's 5% on one project, 1% on another, and
zero on the rest. I spent some time looking into eliminating this
regression by tracking a flag on inference results to note if they could
possibly contain any Divergent type, but this doesn't really work --
there are too many different ways a type containing a Divergent type
could enter an inference result. Still thinking about whether there are
other ways to reduce this. One option is if we see certain kinds of
non-atomic types that are commonly expensive to check for Divergent, we
could make `has_divergent_type` a Salsa query on those types.
## Test Plan
Added mdtest.
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
The debug representation isn't as useful as calling `.display(db)`, but
it's still kind-of annoying when `dbg!()` calls don't compile locally
due to the compiler not being able to guarantee that an object of type
`impl Constraints` implements `Debug`
<!--
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
`CallableTypeOf[bound_method]` would previously bind `self` to the
bound method type itself, instead of binding it to the instance type
stored inside the bound method type.
## Test Plan
Added regression test
This PR adds a new `ty_extensions.ConstraintSet` class, which is used to
expose constraint sets to our mdtest framework. This lets us write a
large collection of unit tests that exercise the invariants and rewrite
rules of our constraint set implementation.
As part of this, `is_assignable_to` and friends are updated to return a
`ConstraintSet` instead of a `bool`, and we implement
`ConstraintSet.__bool__` to return when a constraint set is always
satisfied. That lets us still use
`static_assert(is_assignable_to(...))`, since the assertion will coerce
the constraint set to a bool, and also lets us
`reveal_type(is_assignable_to(...))` to see more detail about
whether/when the two types are assignable. That lets us get rid of
`reveal_when_assignable_to` and friends, since they are now redundant
with the expanded capabilities of `is_assignable_to`.
## Summary
When adding an enum literal `E = Literal[Color.RED]` to a union which
already contained a subtype of that enum literal(!), we were previously
not simplifying the union correctly. My assumption is that our property
tests didn't catch that earlier, because the only possible non-trivial
subytpe of an enum literal that I can think of is `Any & E`. And in
order for that to be detected by the property tests, it would have to
randomly generate `Any & E | E` and then also compare that with `E` on
the other side (in an equivalence test, or the subtyping-antisymmetry
test).
closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1155
## Test Plan
* Added a regression test.
* I also ran the property tests for a while, but probably not for two
months worth of daily CI runs.
<!--
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
In #11115 we moved from defaulting to $HOME/Library/Application Support
to $XDG_HOME on macOS and added a deprecation warning if we find files
in the old location. So this PR removes the warning
closes#19145
## Test Plan
Ran `cargo test`
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.
