The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `SIM210` (#15584 )
It is a little cheating, as the Fix safety section is copy/pasted by
#18086 as the problem is the same.
### Unsafe Fix Example
```python
class Foo():
def __eq__(self, other):
return 0
def foo():
return True if Foo() == 0 else False
def foo_fix():
return Foo() == 0
print(foo()) # False
print(foo_fix()) # 0
```
<!--
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#18107
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
`ProviderReplacement::Name` was designed back when we only wanted to do
linting. Now we also want to fix the user code. It would be easier for
us to replace them with better AutoImport struct.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixture has been updated as some cases can now be fixed
## Summary
This PR deletes the `DiagnosticKind` type by inlining its three fields
(`name`, `body`, and `suggestion`) into three other diagnostic types:
`Diagnostic`, `DiagnosticMessage`, and `CacheMessage`.
Instead of deferring to an internal `DiagnosticKind`, both `Diagnostic`
and `DiagnosticMessage` now have their own macro-generated `AsRule`
implementations.
This should make both https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18051 and
another follow-up PR changing the type of `name` on `CacheMessage`
easier since its type will be able to change separately from
`Diagnostic` and `DiagnosticMessage`.
## Test Plan
Existing tests
The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `SIM103` (#15584 )
### Unsafe Fix Example
```python
class Foo:
def __eq__(self, other):
return 1
def foo():
if Foo() == 1:
return True
return False
def foo_fix():
return Foo() == 1
print(foo()) # True
print(foo_fix()) # 1
```
### Note
I updated the code snippet example, because I thought it was cool to
have a correct example, i.e., that I can paste inside the playground and
it works :-)
Fixes#18069
<!--
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 addresses a bug in the `flake8-simplify` rule `SIM905`
(split-static-string) where `str.split(maxsplit=0)` and
`str.rsplit(maxsplit=0)` produced incorrect results for empty strings or
strings starting/ending with whitespace. The fix ensures that the
linting rule's suggested replacements now align with Python's native
behavior for these specific `maxsplit=0` scenarios.
## Test Plan
1. Added new test cases to the existing
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/flake8_simplify/SIM905.py`
fixture to cover the scenarios described in issue #18069.
2. Ran `cargo test -p ruff_linter`.
3. Verified and accepted the updated snapshots for `SIM905.py` using
`cargo insta review`. The new snapshots confirm the corrected behavior
for `maxsplit=0`.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Similiar to https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17941.
`Replacement::Name` was designed for linting only. Now, we also want to
fix the user code. It would be easier to replace it with a better
AutoImport struct whenever possible.
On the other hand, `AIR301` and `AIR311` contain attribute changes that
can still use a struct like `Replacement::Name`. To reduce the
confusion, I also updated it as `Replacement::AttrName`
Some of the original `Replacement::Name` has been replaced as
`Replacement::Message` as they're not directly mapping and the message
has now been moved to `help`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixtures have been updated
The PR add the `fix safety` section for rule `RUF007` (#15584 )
It seems that the fix was always marked as unsafe #14401
## Unsafety example
This first example is a little extreme. In fact, the class `Foo`
overrides the `__getitem__` method but in a very special, way. The
difference lies in the fact that `zip(letters, letters[1:])` call the
slice `letters[1:]` which is behaving weird in this case, while
`itertools.pairwise(letters)` call just `__getitem__(0), __getitem__(1),
...` and so on.
Note that the diagnostic is emitted: [playground](https://play.ruff.rs)
I don't know if we want to mention this problem, as there is a subtile
bug in the python implementation of `Foo` which make the rule unsafe.
```python
from dataclasses import dataclass
import itertools
@dataclass
class Foo:
letters: str
def __getitem__(self, index):
return self.letters[index] + "_foo"
letters = Foo("ABCD")
zip_ = zip(letters, letters[1:])
for a, b in zip_:
print(a, b) # A_foo B, B_foo C, C_foo D, D_foo _
pair = itertools.pairwise(letters)
for a, b in pair:
print(a, b) # A_foo B_foo, B_foo C_foo, C_foo D_foo
```
This other example is much probable.
here, `itertools.pairwise` was shadowed by a costume function
[(playground)](https://play.ruff.rs)
```python
from dataclasses import dataclass
from itertools import pairwise
def pairwise(a):
return []
letters = "ABCD"
zip_ = zip(letters, letters[1:])
print([(a, b) for a, b in zip_]) # [('A', 'B'), ('B', 'C'), ('C', 'D')]
pair = pairwise(letters)
print(pair) # []
```
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Fixes#17599.
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
If a try-catch block guards the names, we don't raise warnings. During
this change, I discovered that some of the replacement types were
missed. Thus, I extend the fix to types other than AutoImport as well
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Test fixtures are added and updated.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
The existing implementation of RUF060 (InEmptyCollection) is not
recursive, meaning that although set([]) results in an empty collection,
the existing code fails it because set is taking an argument.
The updated implementation allows set and frozenset to take empty
collection as positional argument (which results in empty
set/frozenset).
## Test Plan
Added test cases for recursive cases + updated snapshot (see RUF060.py).
---------
Co-authored-by: Marcus Näslund <marcus.naslund@kognity.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- 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#17776.
This PR also handles all other `PTH*` rules that don't support file
descriptors.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Update existing tests.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
We can only guarantee the safety of the autofix for number literals, all
other cases may change the runtime behaviour of the program or introduce
a syntax error. For the cases reported in the issue that would result in
a syntax error, I disabled the autofix.
Follow-up of #17661.
Fixes#16472.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Re: #17526
## Summary
Add integration test for semantic syntax for `IrrefutableCasePattern`,
`SingleStarredAssignment`, `WriteToDebug`, and `InvalidExpression`.
## Notes
- Following @ntBre's suggestion, I will keep the test coming in batches
like this over the next few days in separate PRs to keep the review load
per PR manageable while also not spamming too many.
- I did not add a test for `del __debug__` which is one of the examples
in `crates/ruff_python_parser/src/semantic_errors.rs:1051`.
For python version `<= 3.8` there is no error and for `>=3.9` the error
is not `WriteToDebug` but `SyntaxError: cannot delete __debug__ on
Python 3.9 (syntax was removed in 3.9)`.
- The `blacken-docs` bypass is necessary because otherwise the test does
not pass pre-commit checks; but we want to check for this faulty syntax.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
This is a test.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
* `airflow.models.Connection` → `airflow.sdk.Connection`
* `airflow.models.Variable` → `airflow.sdk.Variable`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixtures has been updated (see the first commit for easier
review)
## Summary
This PR is a first step toward integration of the new `Diagnostic` type
into ruff. There are two main changes:
- A new `UnifiedFile` enum wrapping `File` for red-knot and a
`SourceFile` for ruff
- ruff's `Message::SyntaxError` variant is now a `Diagnostic` instead of
a `SyntaxErrorMessage`
The second of these changes was mostly just a proof of concept for the
first, and it went pretty smoothly. Converting `DiagnosticMessage`s will
be most of the work in replacing `Message` entirely.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, which show no changes.
---------
Co-authored-by: Carl Meyer <carl@astral.sh>
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
This PR partially addresses #16418 via the following:
- `LinterSettings::unresolved_python_version` is now a `TargetVersion`,
which is a thin wrapper around an `Option<PythonVersion>`
- `Checker::target_version` now calls `TargetVersion::linter_version`
internally, which in turn uses `unwrap_or_default` to preserve the
current default behavior
- Calls to the parser now call `TargetVersion::parser_version`, which
calls `unwrap_or_else(PythonVersion::latest)`
- The `Checker`'s implementation of
`SemanticSyntaxContext::python_version` also uses
`TargetVersion::parser_version` to use `PythonVersion::latest` for
semantic errors
In short, all lint rule behavior should be unchanged, but we default to
the latest Python version for the new syntax errors, which should
minimize confusing version-related syntax errors for users without a
version configured.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, which showed no changes (except for printing default
settings).
## Summary
Introducing a new rule based on discussions in #15732 and #15729 that
checks for unnecessary in with empty collections.
I called it in_empty_collection and gave the rule number RUF060.
Rule is in preview group.
The PR add the fix safety section for rule `RUF013`
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/15584 )
The fix was introduced here #4831
The rule as a lot of False Negative (as it is explained in the docs of
the rule).
The main reason because the fix is unsafe is that it could change code
generation tools behaviour, as in the example here:
```python
def generate_api_docs(func):
hints = get_type_hints(func)
for param, hint in hints.items():
if is_optional_type(hint):
print(f"Parameter '{param}' is optional")
else:
print(f"Parameter '{param}' is required")
# Before fix
def create_user(name: str, roles: list[str] = None):
pass
# After fix
def create_user(name: str, roles: Optional[list[str]] = None):
pass
# Generated docs would change from "roles is required" to "roles is optional"
```
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
Re: #17526
## Summary
Add test fixtures for `AwaitOutsideAsync` and
`AsyncComprehensionOutsideAsyncFunction` errors.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
This is a test.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Re: #17526
## Summary
Add integration tests for Python Semantic Syntax for
`InvalidStarExpression`, `DuplicateMatchKey`, and
`DuplicateMatchClassAttribute`.
## Note
- Red knot integration tests for `DuplicateMatchKey` exist already in
line 89-101.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
This is a test.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
When attempting to determine whether `import foo.bar.baz` is a known
first-party import relative to [user-provided source
paths](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/settings/#src), when `preview` is
enabled we now check that `SRC/foo/bar/baz` is a directory or
`SRC/foo/bar/baz.py` or `SRC/foo/bar/baz.pyi` exist.
Previously, we just checked the analogous thing for `SRC/foo`, but this
can be misleading in situations with disjoint namespace packages that
share a common base name (e.g. we may be working inside the namespace
package `foo.buzz` and importing `foo.bar` from elsewhere).
Supersedes #12987Closes#12984
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
Fixes#17798
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Snapshot tests
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Skip attribute check in try catch block (`AIR301`)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/airflow/AIR301_names_try.py`
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! 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?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Remove `airflow.utils.dag_parsing_context.get_parsing_context` from
AIR301 as it has been moved to AIR311
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
the test fixture was updated in the previous PR
This PR updates the semantic model for Python 3.14 by essentially
equating "run using Python 3.14" with "uses `from __future__ import
annotations`".
While this is not technically correct under the hood, it appears to be
correct for the purposes of our semantic model. That is: from the point
of view of deciding when to parse, bind, etc. annotations, these two
contexts behave the same. More generally these contexts behave the same
unless you are performing some kind of introspection like the following:
Without future import:
```pycon
>>> from annotationlib import get_annotations,Format
>>> def foo()->Bar:...
...
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.FORWARDREF)
{'return': ForwardRef('Bar')}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.STRING)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.VALUE)
Traceback (most recent call last):
[...]
NameError: name 'Bar' is not defined
>>> get_annotations(foo)
Traceback (most recent call last):
[...]
NameError: name 'Bar' is not defined
```
With future import:
```
>>> from __future__ import annotations
>>> from annotationlib import get_annotations,Format
>>> def foo()->Bar:...
...
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.FORWARDREF)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.STRING)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo,format=Format.VALUE)
{'return': 'Bar'}
>>> get_annotations(foo)
{'return': 'Bar'}
```
(Note: the result of the last call to `get_annotations` in these
examples relies on the fact that, as of this writing, the default value
for `format` is `Format.VALUE`).
If one day we support lint rules targeting code that introspects using
the new `annotationlib`, then it is possible we will need to revisit our
approximation.
Closes#15100
