Summary
--
I've been noticing this failure in the formatter ecosystem check and
decided to
look into it. We fail to parse the
[notebook](https://github.com/openai/openai-cookbook/blob/main/examples/mcp/databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb)
because some of the `code` cells
have non-Python code in them. `ruff format` only reports one of these,
corresponding to a shell snippet, but `ruff check` emits some additional
errors
about JS code later in the file too:
```
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 21:1:11: SyntaxError: Simple statements must be separated by newlines or semicolons
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 21:1:19: SyntaxError: Simple statements must be separated by newlines or semicolons
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 21:1:50: SyntaxError: Simple statements must be separated by newlines or semicolons
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:4:7: SyntaxError: Simple statements must be separated by newlines or semicolons
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:4:41: E703 Statement ends with an unnecessary semicolon
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:5:14: SyntaxError: Expected ':', found '{'
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:6:9: SyntaxError: Expected ',', found '{'
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:6:25: SyntaxError: Expected ',', found '='
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:6:46: SyntaxError: Expected ',', found ';'
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:6:47: SyntaxError: Expected '}', found newline
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:7:1: SyntaxError: Unexpected indentation
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:7:13: SyntaxError: Expected ':', found 'break'
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:7:18: E703 Statement ends with an unnecessary semicolon
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:8:28: SyntaxError: Simple statements must be separated by newlines or semicolons
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:8:55: E703 Statement ends with an unnecessary semicolon
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:9:18: SyntaxError: Expected an expression
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:10:11: SyntaxError: Expected ',', found name
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:10:16: SyntaxError: Expected ',', found '='
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:10:22: SyntaxError: Expected ',', found name
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:10:24: SyntaxError: Expected ',', found ';'
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:11:27: SyntaxError: Expected ',', found '='
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:11:34: SyntaxError: Expected ',', found name
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:11:48: SyntaxError: Expected ',', found ';'
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:11:49: SyntaxError: Expected '}', found NonLogicalNewline
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:12:1: SyntaxError: Unexpected indentation
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:12:16: E703 Statement ends with an unnecessary semicolon
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:13:3: SyntaxError: Expected a statement
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:13:4: SyntaxError: Expected a statement
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:13:5: SyntaxError: Expected a statement
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:13:5: E703 Statement ends with an unnecessary semicolon
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:13:6: SyntaxError: Expected a statement
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:14:1: SyntaxError: Expected a statement
databricks_mcp_cookbook.ipynb:cell 30:14:2: SyntaxError: Expected a statement
```
Test Plan
--
This PR
Summary
--
This should resolve the formatter ecosystem errors we've been seeing
lately. https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson-python/pull/728 added the
links, which I think are intentionally broken for testing purposes.
Test Plan
--
Ecosystem check on this PR
Summary
--
This updates the regex in `ruff-ecosystem` to catch syntax errors in an
effort to prevent bugs like #16874. This should catch `ParseError`s,
`UnsupportedSyntaxError`s, and the upcoming `SemanticSyntaxError`s.
Test Plan
--
I ran the ecosystem check locally comparing v0.11.0 and v0.11.1 and saw
a large number (2757!) of new syntax errors. I also manually tested the
regex on a few lines before that.
If we merge this before #16878, I'd expect to see that number decrease
substantially in that PR too, as another test.
## Summary
@zanieb noticed while we were discussing #12595 that this flag is now
unnecessary, so remove it and the flags which reference it.
## Test Plan
Question for maintainers: is there a test to add *or* remove here? (I’ve
opened this as a draft PR with that in view!)
## Summary
Follow-up to https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/12129 to remove the
`demisto/content` from ecosystem checks. The previous PR removed it from
the deprecated script which I didn't notice until recently.
## Test Plan
Ecosystem comment
## Summary
Something's up with this repo -- they added a post-checkout hook? So
let's just remove it for now. We should go through and add a new batch
of repositories some time.
It's a pretty big codebase using lots of different stuff, so a good
candidate for finding obscure problems.
I didn't look more closely which options are used (I have the feeling
`--select ALL` is not implied, since I see you adding it via
`check_options` for certain entries but not for others), the repo itself
has a pretty large ruff.toml - but assuming ecosystem just cares about
differences between base and head of a PR, `ALL` most likely makes
sense.
Fixes a regression in the ecosystem checks from
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/9687 which was causing them to
run for multiple hours due to the size of the output.
We need the concise format for comparisons.
We should probably update the ecosystem checks to actually diff the full
output in the future because that'd be nice.
# Conflicts:
# python/ruff-ecosystem/ruff_ecosystem/projects.py
Updated implementation of https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/7369
which was left out in the cold.
This was motivated again following changes in #9691 and #9689 where we
could not test the changes without actually deprecating or removing
rules.
---
Follow-up to discussion in https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/7210
Moves integration tests from using rules that are transitively in
nursery / preview groups to dedicated test rules that only exist during
development. These rules always raise violations (they do not require
specific file behavior). The rules are not available in production or in
the documentation.
Uses features instead of `cfg(test)` for cross-crate support per
https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/8379
Uses our existing configuration overrides to unset the
`required-version` option in ecosystem projects during checks.
The downside to this approach, is we will now update the config file of
_every_ project (with a config file). This roughly normalizes the configuration file, as we
don't preserve comments and such. We could instead do a more targeted
approach applying this override to projects which we know use this
setting 🤷♀️
Adds the ability to override `ruff.toml` or `pyproject.toml` settings
per-project during ecosystem checks.
Exploring this as a fix for the `setuptools` project error.
Also useful for including Jupyter Notebooks in the ecosystem checks, see
#9293
Note the remaining `sphinx` project error is resolved in #9294
Failing due to
> error: Failed to read tests/roots/test-pycode/cp_1251_coded.py: stream
did not contain valid UTF-8
Unclear to me if ignoring is the correct response.
Instead of displaying the total completed project count in the "changed"
section of a header, we now separately calculated the changed and
unchanged count to make the header message nice and clear.
e.g.
> ℹ️ ecosystem check **detected format changes**. (+1772 -1859 lines in
239 files in 26 projects; 6 project errors; 9 projects unchanged)
and
> ℹ️ ecosystem check **detected linter changes**. (+4598 -5023
violations, +0 -40 fixes in 13 projects; 4 project errors; 24 projects
unchanged)
Previously, it would have included the unchanged count in the first
project count.
