Summary
--
Fixes#16874. I previously emitted a syntax error when starred
annotations were _allowed_ rather than when they were actually used.
This caused false positives for any starred parameter name because these
are allowed to have starred annotations but not required to. The fix is
to check if the annotation is actually starred after parsing it.
Test Plan
--
New inline parser tests derived from the initial report and more
examples from the comments, although I think the first case should cover
them all.
## Summary
This PR detects the use of PEP 701 f-strings before 3.12. This one
sounded difficult and ended up being pretty easy, so I think there's a
good chance I've over-simplified things. However, from experimenting in
the Python REPL and checking with [pyright], I think this is correct.
pyright actually doesn't even flag the comment case, but Python does.
I also checked pyright's implementation for
[quotes](98dc4469cc/packages/pyright-internal/src/analyzer/checker.ts (L1379-L1398))
and
[escapes](98dc4469cc/packages/pyright-internal/src/analyzer/checker.ts (L1365-L1377))
and think I've approximated how they do it.
Python's error messages also point to the simple approach of these
characters simply not being allowed:
```pycon
Python 3.11.11 (main, Feb 12 2025, 14:51:05) [Clang 19.1.6 ] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> f'''multiline {
... expression # comment
... }'''
File "<stdin>", line 3
}'''
^
SyntaxError: f-string expression part cannot include '#'
>>> f'''{not a line \
... continuation}'''
File "<stdin>", line 2
continuation}'''
^
SyntaxError: f-string expression part cannot include a backslash
>>> f'hello {'world'}'
File "<stdin>", line 1
f'hello {'world'}'
^^^^^
SyntaxError: f-string: expecting '}'
```
And since escapes aren't allowed, I don't think there are any tricky
cases where nested quotes or comments can sneak in.
It's also slightly annoying that the error is repeated for every nested
quote character, but that also mirrors pyright, although they highlight
the whole nested string, which is a little nicer. However, their check
is in the analysis phase, so I don't think we have such easy access to
the quoted range, at least without adding another mini visitor.
## Test Plan
New inline tests
[pyright]:
https://pyright-play.net/?pythonVersion=3.11&strict=true&code=EYQw5gBAvBAmCWBjALgCgO4gHaygRgEoAoEaCAIgBpyiiBiCLAUwGdknYIBHAVwHt2LIgDMA5AFlwSCJhwAuCAG8IoMAG1Rs2KIC6EAL6iIxosbPmLlq5foRWiEAAcmERAAsQAJxAomnltY2wuSKogA6WKIAdABWfPBYqCAE%2BuSBVqbpWVm2iHwAtvlMWMgB2ekiolUAgq4FjgA2TAAeEMieSADWCsoV5qoaqrrGDJ5MiDz%2B8ABuLqosAIREhlXlaybrmyYMXsDw7V4AnoysyAmQ5SIhwYo3d9cheADUeKlv5O%2BpQA
## Summary
A small followup to https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16386. We now
tell the user exactly what it was about their decorator that constituted
invalid syntax on Python <3.9, and the range now highlights the specific
sub-expression that is invalid rather than highlighting the whole
decorator
## Test Plan
Inline snapshots are updated, and new ones are added.
## Summary
This PR detects unparenthesized assignment expressions used in set
literals and comprehensions and in sequence indexes. The link to the
release notes in https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6591 just has
this entry:
> * Assignment expressions can now be used unparenthesized within set
literals and set comprehensions, as well as in sequence indexes (but not
slices).
with no other information, so hopefully the test cases I came up with
cover all of the changes. I also tested these out in the Python REPL and
they actually worked in Python 3.9 too. I'm guessing this may be another
case that was "formally made part of the language spec in Python 3.10,
but usable -- and commonly used -- in Python >=3.9" as @AlexWaygood
added to the body of #6591 for context managers. So we may want to
change the version cutoff, but I've gone along with the release notes
for now.
## Test Plan
New inline parser tests and linter CLI tests.
Summary
--
This is closely related to (and stacked on)
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16544 and detects star
annotations in function definitions.
I initially called the variant `StarExpressionInAnnotation` to mirror
`StarExpressionInIndex`, but I realized it's not really a "star
expression" in this position and renamed it. `StarAnnotation` seems in
line with the PEP.
Test Plan
--
Two new inline tests. It looked like there was pretty good existing
coverage of this syntax, so I just added simple examples to test the
version cutoff.
Summary
--
This PR reuses a slightly modified version of the
`check_tuple_unpacking` method added for detecting unpacking in `return`
and `yield` statements to detect the same issue in the iterator clause
of `for` loops.
I ran into the same issue with a bare `for x in *rest: ...` example
(invalid even on Python 3.13) and added it as a comment on
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16520.
I considered just making this an additional `StarTupleKind` variant as
well, but this change was in a different version of Python, so I kept it
separate.
Test Plan
--
New inline tests.
## Summary
This should give us better coverage for the unsupported syntax error
features and
increases our confidence that the formatter doesn't accidentially
introduce new unsupported
syntax errors.
A feature like this would have been very useful when working on f-string
formatting
where it took a lot of iteration to find all Python 3.11 or older
incompatibilities.
## Test Plan
I applied my changes on top of
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16523 and
removed the target version check in the with-statement formatting code.
As expected,
the integration tests now failed
Summary
--
Unlike the other syntax errors detected so far, parenthesized keyword
arguments are only allowed *before* 3.8. It sounds like they were only
accidentally allowed before that [^1].
As an aside, you get a pretty confusing error from Python for this, so
it's nice that we can catch it:
```pycon
>>> def f(**kwargs): ...
... f((a)=1)
...
File "<python-input-0>", line 2
f((a)=1)
^^^
SyntaxError: expression cannot contain assignment, perhaps you meant "=="?
>>>
```
Test Plan
--
Inline tests.
[^1]: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/78822
Summary
--
Checks for tuple unpacking in `return` and `yield` statements before
Python 3.8, as described [here].
Test Plan
--
Inline tests.
[here]: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/76298
Summary
--
Another simple one, just detect type parameter lists in functions
and classes. Like pyright, we don't emit a second diagnostic for
`type` alias statements, which were also introduced in 3.12.
Test Plan
--
Inline tests.
Summary
--
Detects the presence of a [PEP 696] type parameter default before Python
3.13.
Test Plan
--
New inline parser tests for type aliases, generic functions and generic
classes.
[PEP 696]: https://peps.python.org/pep-0696/#grammar-changes
Summary
--
This is a follow-up to #16446 to fix the diagnostic range to point to
the `*` like `pyright` does
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16446#discussion_r1976900643).
Storing the range in the `ExceptClauseKind::Star` variant feels slightly
awkward, but we don't store the star itself anywhere on the
`ExceptHandler`. And we can't just take `ExceptHandler.start() +
"except".text_len()` because this code appears to be valid:
```python
try: ...
except * Error: ...
```
Test Plan
--
Existing tests.
Summary
--
This is a follow up addressing the comments on #16425. As @dhruvmanila
pointed out, the naming is a bit tricky. I went with `has_no_errors` to
try to differentiate it from `is_valid`. It actually ends up negated in
most uses, so it would be more convenient to have `has_any_errors` or
`has_errors`, but I thought it would sound too much like the opposite of
`is_valid` in that case. I'm definitely open to suggestions here.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests.
## Summary
This PR is the first in a series derived from
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16308, each of which add support
for detecting one version-related syntax error from
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6591. This one should be
the largest because it also includes the addition of the
`Parser::add_unsupported_syntax_error` method
Otherwise I think the general structure will be the same for each syntax
error:
* Detecting the error in the parser
* Inline parser tests for the new error
* New ruff CLI tests for the new error
## Test Plan
As noted above, there are new inline parser tests, as well as new ruff
CLI
tests. Once https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16379 is resolved,
there should also be new mdtests for red-knot,
but this PR does not currently include those.
## Summary
This PR adds support for a pragma-style header for inline parser tests
containing JSON-serialized `ParseOptions`. For example,
```python
# parse_options: { "target-version": "3.9" }
match 2:
case 1:
pass
```
The line must start with `# parse_options: ` and then the rest of the
(trimmed) line is deserialized into `ParseOptions` used for parsing the
the test.
## Test Plan
Existing inline tests, plus two new inline tests for
`match-before-py310`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <alex.waygood@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR builds on the changes in #16220 to pass a target Python version
to the parser. It also adds the `Parser::unsupported_syntax_errors` field, which
collects version-related syntax errors while parsing. These syntax
errors are then turned into `Message`s in ruff (in preview mode).
This PR only detects one syntax error (`match` statement before Python
3.10), but it has been pretty quick to extend to several other simple
errors (see #16308 for example).
## Test Plan
The current tests are CLI tests in the linter crate, but these could be
supplemented with inline parser tests after #16357.
I also tested the display of these syntax errors in VS Code:
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <alex.waygood@gmail.com>
## Summary
This is part of the preparation for detecting syntax errors in the
parser from https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16090/. As suggested
in [this
comment](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16090/#discussion_r1953084509),
I started working on a `ParseOptions` struct that could be stored in the
parser. For this initial refactor, I only made it hold the existing
`Mode` option, but for syntax errors, we will also need it to have a
`PythonVersion`. For that use case, I'm picturing something like a
`ParseOptions::with_python_version` method, so you can extend the
current calls to something like
```rust
ParseOptions::from(mode).with_python_version(settings.target_version)
```
But I thought it was worth adding `ParseOptions` alone without changing
any other behavior first.
Most of the diff is just updating call sites taking `Mode` to take
`ParseOptions::from(Mode)` or those taking `PySourceType`s to take
`ParseOptions::from(PySourceType)`. The interesting changes are in the
new `parser/options.rs` file and smaller parts of `parser/mod.rs` and
`ruff_python_parser/src/lib.rs`.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, this should not change any behavior.
## Summary
This PR makes the following changes:
- It adjusts various callsites to use the new
`ast::StringLiteral::contents_range()` method that was introduced in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16183. This is less verbose and
more type-safe than using the `ast::str::raw_contents()` helper
function.
- It adds a new `ast::ExprStringLiteral::as_unconcatenated_literal()`
helper method, and adjusts various callsites to use it. This addresses
@MichaReiser's review comment at
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16183#discussion_r1957334365.
There is no functional change here, but it helps readability to make it
clearer that we're differentiating between implicitly concatenated
strings and unconcatenated strings at various points.
- It renames the `StringLiteralValue::flags()` method to
`StringLiteralFlags::first_literal_flags()`. If you're dealing with an
implicitly concatenated string `string_node`,
`string_node.value.flags().closer_len()` could give an incorrect result;
this renaming makes it clearer that the `StringLiteralFlags` instance
returned by the method is only guaranteed to give accurate information
for the first `StringLiteral` contained in the `ExprStringLiteral` node.
- It deletes the unused `BytesLiteralValue::flags()` method. This seems
prone to misuse in the same way as `StringLiteralValue::flags()`: if
it's an implicitly concatenated bytestring, the `BytesLiteralFlags`
instance returned by the method would only give accurate information for
the first `BytesLiteral` in the bytestring.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Resolves#13294, follow-up to #13882.
At #13882, it was concluded that a fix should not be offered for raw
strings. This change implements that. The five rules in question are now
no longer always fixable.
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run` and `cargo insta test`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
This is a follow-up to #15726, #15778, and #15794 to preserve the triple
quote and prefix flags in plain strings, bytestrings, and f-strings.
I also added a `StringLiteralFlags::without_triple_quotes` method to
avoid passing along triple quotes in rules like SIM905 where it might
not make sense, as discussed
[here](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15726#discussion_r1930532426).
## Test Plan
Existing tests, plus many new cases in the `generator::tests::quote`
test that should cover all combinations of quotes and prefixes, at least
for simple string bodies.
Closes#7799 when combined with #15694, #15726, #15778, and #15794.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
This is a first step toward fixing #7799 by using the quoting style
stored in the `flags` field on `ast::StringLiteral`s to select a quoting
style. This PR does not include support for f-strings or byte strings.
Several rules also needed small updates to pass along existing quoting
styles instead of using `StringLiteralFlags::default()`. The remaining
snapshot changes are intentional and should preserve the quotes from the
input strings.
## Test Plan
Existing tests with some accepted updates, plus a few new RUF055 tests
for raw strings.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <alex.waygood@gmail.com>
## Summary
Resolves#9467
Parse quoted annotations as if the string content is inside parenthesis.
With this logic `x` and `y` in this example are equal:
```python
y: """
int |
str
"""
z: """(
int |
str
)
"""
```
Also this rule only applies to triple
quotes([link](https://github.com/python/typing-council/issues/9#issuecomment-1890808610)).
This PR is based on the
[comments](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9467#issuecomment-2579180991)
on the issue.
I did one extra change, since we don't want any indentation tokens I am
setting the `State::Other` as the initial state of the Lexer.
Remaining work:
- [x] Add a test case for red-knot.
- [x] Add more tests.
## Test Plan
Added a test which previously failed because quoted annotation contained
indentation.
Added an mdtest for red-knot.
Updated previous test.
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
This update includes some missing `^` in the diagnostic annotations.
This update also includes some shifting of "syntax error" annotations to
the end of the preceding line. I believe this is technically a
regression, but fixing them has proven quite difficult. I *think* the
best way to do that might be to tweak the spans generated by the Python
parser errors, but I didn't want to dig into that. (Another approach
would be to change the `annotate-snippets` rendering, but when I tried
that and managed to fix these regressions, I ended up causing a bunch of
other regressions.)
Ref 77d454525e (r1915458616)
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 looks like a bug fix that occurs when the annotation is a
zero-width span immediately following a line terminator. Previously, the
caret seems to be rendered on the next line, but it should be rendered
at the end of the line the span corresponds to.
I admit that this one is kinda weird. I would somewhat expect that our
spans here are actually incorrect, and that to obtain this sort of
rendering, we should identify a span just immediately _before_ the line
terminator and not after it. But I don't want to dive into that rabbit
hole for now (and given how `annotate-snippets` now renders these
spans, perhaps there is more to it than I see), and this does seem like
a clear improvement given the spans we feed to `annotate-snippets`.
The previous rendering just seems wrong in that a `^` is omitted. The
new version of `annotate-snippets` seems to get this right. I checked a
pseudo random sample of these, and it seems to only happen when the
position pointed at a line terminator.
These updates center around the addition of annotations in the
diagnostic rendering. Previously, the annotation was just not rendered
at all. With the `annotate-snippets` upgrade, it is now rendered. I
examined a pseudo random sample of these, and they all look correct.
As will be true in future batches, some of these snapshots also have
changes to whitespace in them as well.
These snapshot changes should *all* only be a result of changes to
trailing whitespace in the output. I checked a psuedo random sample of
these, and the whitespace found in the previous snapshots seems to be an
artifact of the rendering and _not_ of the source data. So this seems
like a strict bug fix to me.
There are other snapshots with whitespace changes, but they also have
other changes that we split out into separate commits. Basically, we're
going to do approximately one commit per category of change.
This represents, by far, the biggest chunk of changes to snapshots as a
result of the `annotate-snippets` upgrade.
This is pretty much just moving to the new API and taking care to use
byte offsets. This is *almost* enough. The next commit will fix a bug
involving the handling of unprintable characters as a result of
switching to byte offsets.
When confronted with `raise from exc` the parser will now create a
`StmtRaise` that has `None` for the exception and `exc` for the cause.
Before, the parser created a `StmtRaise` with `from` for the exception,
no cause, and a spurious expression `exc` afterwards.
This PR adds a syntax error if the parser encounters a `TryStmt` that
has except clauses both with and without a star.
The displayed error points to each except clause that contradicts the
original except clause kind. So, for example,
```python
try:
....
except: #<-- we assume this is the desired except kind
....
except*: #<--- error will point here
....
except*: #<--- and here
....
```
Closes#14860
## Summary
This PR gets rid of the `requirements.in` and `requirements.txt` files
in the `scripts/fuzz-parser` directory, and replaces them with
`pyproject.toml` and `uv.lock` files. The script is renamed from
`fuzz-parser` to `py-fuzzer` (since it can now also be used to fuzz
red-knot as well as the parser, following
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/14566), and moved from the
`scripts/` directory to the `python/` directory, since it's now a
(uv)-pip-installable project in its own right.
I've been resisting this for a while, because conceptually this script
just doesn't feel "complicated" enough to me for it to be a full-blown
package. However, I think it's time to do this. Making it a proper
package has several advantages:
- It means we can run it from the project root using `uv run` without
having to activate a virtual environment and ensure that all required
dependencies are installed into that environment
- Using a `pyproject.toml` file means that we can express that the
project requires Python 3.12+ to run properly; this wasn't possible
before
- I've been running mypy on the project locally when I've been working
on it or reviewing other people's PRs; now I can put the mypy config for
the project in the `pyproject.toml` file
## Test Plan
I manually tested that all the commands detailed in
`python/py-fuzzer/README.md` work for me locally.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Peter <sharkdp@users.noreply.github.com>
