## Summary
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10858.
`ruff server` now supports `*.ipynb` (aka Jupyter Notebook) files.
Extensive internal changes have been made to facilitate this, which I've
done some work to contextualize with documentation and an pre-review
that highlights notable sections of the code.
`*.ipynb` cells should behave similarly to `*.py` documents, with one
major exception. The format command `ruff.applyFormat` will only apply
to the currently selected notebook cell - if you want to format an
entire notebook document, use `Format Notebook` from the VS Code context
menu.
## Test Plan
The VS Code extension does not yet have Jupyter Notebook support
enabled, so you'll first need to enable it manually. To do this,
checkout the `pre-release` branch and modify `src/common/server.ts` as
follows:
Before:
After:
I recommend testing this PR with large, complicated notebook files. I
used notebook files from [this popular
repository](https://github.com/jakevdp/PythonDataScienceHandbook/tree/master/notebooks)
in my preliminary testing.
The main thing to test is ensuring that notebook cells behave the same
as Python documents, besides the aforementioned issue with
`ruff.applyFormat`. You should also test adding and deleting cells (in
particular, deleting all the code cells and ensure that doesn't break
anything), changing the kind of a cell (i.e. from markup -> code or vice
versa), and creating a new notebook file from scratch. Finally, you
should also test that source actions work as expected (and across the
entire notebook).
Note: `ruff.applyAutofix` and `ruff.applyOrganizeImports` are currently
broken for notebook files, and I suspect it has something to do with
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/11248. Once this is fixed, I
will update the test plan accordingly.
---------
Co-authored-by: nolan <nolan.king90@gmail.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
This PR introduces the `ruff_server` crate and a new `ruff server`
command. `ruff_server` is a re-implementation of
[`ruff-lsp`](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff-lsp), written entirely in
Rust. It brings significant performance improvements, much tighter
integration with Ruff, a foundation for supporting entirely new language
server features, and more!
This PR is an early version of `ruff_lsp` that we're calling the
**pre-release** version. Anyone is more than welcome to use it and
submit bug reports for any issues they encounter - we'll have some
documentation on how to set it up with a few common editors, and we'll
also provide a pre-release VSCode extension for those interested.
This pre-release version supports:
- **Diagnostics for `.py` files**
- **Quick fixes**
- **Full-file formatting**
- **Range formatting**
- **Multiple workspace folders**
- **Automatic linter/formatter configuration** - taken from any
`pyproject.toml` files in the workspace.
Many thanks to @MichaReiser for his [proof-of-concept
work](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/7262), which was important
groundwork for making this PR possible.
## Architectural Decisions
I've made an executive choice to go with `lsp-server` as a base
framework for the LSP, in favor of `tower-lsp`. There were several
reasons for this:
1. I would like to avoid `async` in our implementation. LSPs are mostly
computationally bound rather than I/O bound, and `async` adds a lot of
complexity to the API, while also making harder to reason about
execution order. This leads into the second reason, which is...
2. Any handlers that mutate state should be blocking and run in the
event loop, and the state should be lock-free. This is the approach that
`rust-analyzer` uses (also with the `lsp-server`/`lsp-types` crates as a
framework), and it gives us assurances about data mutation and execution
order. `tower-lsp` doesn't support this, which has caused some
[issues](https://github.com/ebkalderon/tower-lsp/issues/284) around data
races and out-of-order handler execution.
3. In general, I think it makes sense to have tight control over
scheduling and the specifics of our implementation, in exchange for a
slightly higher up-front cost of writing it ourselves. We'll be able to
fine-tune it to our needs and support future LSP features without
depending on an upstream maintainer.
## Test Plan
The pre-release of `ruff_server` will have snapshot tests for common
document editing scenarios. An expanded test suite is on the roadmap for
future version of `ruff_server`.
