<!--
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 is a cleanup PR. I am fixing various English language spelling
errors. This is mostly in docs and docstrings.
## Test Plan
The usual CI tests were run. I tried to build the docs (though I had
some troubles there). The testing needs here are, I trust, very low
impact. (Though I would happily test more.)
## Summary
Found a comment that looks to be intended as docstring but accidentally
is just a normal comment.
Didn't create an issue as the readme said it's not neccessary for
trivial changes.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Can be tested by regenerating the docs.
Co-authored-by: Marcus Näslund <vidaochmarcus@gmail.com>
We do this because `...` is valid Python, which makes it pretty likely
that some line trimming will lead to ambiguous output. So we add support
for overriding the cut indicator. This also requires changing some of
the alignment math, which was previously tightly coupled to `...`.
For Ruff, we go with `…` (`U+2026 HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS`) for our cut
indicator.
For more details, see the patch sent to upstream:
https://github.com/rust-lang/annotate-snippets-rs/pull/172
This fix was sent upstream and the PR description includes more details:
https://github.com/rust-lang/annotate-snippets-rs/pull/170
Without this fix, there was an errant snapshot diff that looked like
this:
|
1 | version = "0.1.0"
2 | # Ensure that the spans from toml handle utf-8 correctly
3 | authors = [
| ___________^
4 | | { name = "Z͑ͫ̓ͪ̂ͫ̽͏̴̙...A̴̵̜̰͔ͫ͗͢L̠ͨͧͩ͘G̴̻͈͍̑͗̎̅͛́Ǫ̵̹̻̝̳͂̌̌͘", email = 1 }
5 | | ]
| |_^ RUF200
|
That ellipsis should _not_ be inserted since the line is not actually
truncated. The handling of line length (in bytes versus actual rendered
length) wasn't quite being handled correctly in all cases.
With this fix, there's (correctly) no snapshot diff.
The change to the rendering code is elaborated on in more detail here,
where I attempted to upstream it:
https://github.com/rust-lang/annotate-snippets-rs/pull/169
Otherwise, the snapshot diff also shows a bug fix: a `^` is now rendered
where as it previously was not.
This is a tiny change that, perhaps slightly shady, permits us to use
the `annotate-snippets` renderer without its mandatory header (which
wasn't there in `annotate-snippets 0.9`). Specifically, we can now do
this:
Level::None.title("")
The combination of a "none" level and an empty label results in the
`annotate-snippets` header being skipped entirely. (Not even an empty
line is written.)
This is maybe not the right API for upstream `annotate-snippets`, but
it's very easy for us to do and unblocks the upgrade (albeit relying on
a vendored copy).
Ref https://github.com/rust-lang/annotate-snippets-rs/issues/167
This merely adds the crate to our repository. Some cosmetic changes are
made to make it work in our repo and follow our conventions, such as
changing the name to `ruff_annotate_snippets`. We retain the original
license information. We do drop some things, such as benchmarks, but
keep tests and examples.
