## Summary
This PR adds a newtype wrapper around `Vec<FStringElement>` that derefs
to a `&Vec<FStringElement>`.
Both f-string and format specifier are made up of `Vec<FStringElement>`.
By creating a newtype wrapper around it, we can share the methods for
both parent types.
## Summary
This PR adds support to iterate over each part of a string-like
expression.
This similar to the one in the formatter:
128414cd95/crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/string/any.rs (L121-L125)
Although I don't think it's a 1-1 replacement in the formatter because
the one implemented in the formatter has another information for certain
variants (as can be seen for `FString`).
The main motivation for this is to avoid duplication for rules which
work only on the parts of the string and doesn't require any information
from the parent node. Here, the parent node being the expression node
which could be an implicitly concatenated string.
This PR also updates certain rule implementation to make use of this and
avoids logic duplication.
## Summary
This PR renames `AnyStringKind` to `AnyStringFlags` and `AnyStringFlags`
to `AnyStringFlagsInner`.
The main motivation is to have consistent usage of "kind" and "flags".
For each string kind, it's "flags" like `StringLiteralFlags`,
`BytesLiteralFlags`, and `FStringFlags` but it was `AnyStringKind` for
the "any" variant.
## Summary
Changes `future-rewritable-type-annotation` (`FA100`) message to be less
confusing. Uses phrasing from the rule documentation to be consistent.
For example,
```
from_typing_import.py:5:13: FA100 Add `from __future__ import annotations` to rewrite `typing.List` more succinctly
```
Closes#10573.
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run`
## Summary
Should this consider the decorator only if the name is actually a
property or is the logic in this PR correct?
fixes: #11358
## Test Plan
Add test case.
## Summary
This PR fixes a bug where the auto-fix for `TCH005` would delete the
entire `if` statement.
The fix in this PR is to not consider it a violation if there are any
`elif`/`else` blocks. This also matches the behavior of the original
plugin.
fixes: #11368
## Test plan
Add test cases.
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10594.
Code actions to disable a diagnostic via `noqa` comment are now
available.
6d3bcf11-a9d9-499b-8c7f-a10cd39cfbba
`DiagnosticFix` has been changed so that `noqa` code actions appear even
for diagnostics with no available quick fix. It can contain quick fix
edits, `noqa` comment edits, or both.
## Test Plan
The scenarios that need to be tested are as follows:
* A code action to disable a diagnostic should be available for every
diagnostic.
* Using this code action should append to the appropriate line with the
diagnostic, or modify an existing `noqa` comment.
* Adding a `noqa` comment manually should make a diagnostic disappear
* `Fix all auto-fixable problems` should not add `noqa` comments
* Removing a code from a `noqa` comment should make the diagnostic
re-appear
## Summary
`--add-noqa` now runs in two stages: first, the linter finds all
diagnostics that need noqa comments and generate edits on a per-line
basis. Second, these edits are applied, in order, to the document.
A public-facing function, `generate_noqa_edits`, has also been
introduced, which returns noqa edits generated on a per-diagnostic
basis. This will be used by `ruff server` for noqa comment quick-fixes.
## Test Plan
Unit tests have been updated.
Addresses this comment:
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/11357#issuecomment-2104714029
## Summary
The docs for F541 did not mention some surprising, but WAI, behavior
regarding implicit string concatenation. Update the docs to describe the
behavior.
Here's how things rendered for me locally:
## Summary
This PR adds updates the semantic model to detect attribute docstring.
Refer to [PEP 258](https://peps.python.org/pep-0258/#attribute-docstrings)
for the definition of an attribute docstring.
This PR doesn't add full support for it but only considers string
literals as attribute docstring for the following cases:
1. A string literal following an assignment statement in the **global
scope**.
2. A global class attribute
For an assignment statement, it's considered an attribute docstring only
if the target expression is a name expression (`x = 1`). So, chained
assignment, multiple assignment or unpacking, and starred expression,
which are all valid in the target position, aren't considered here.
In `__init__` method, an assignment to the `self` variable like `self.x = 1`
is also a candidate for an attribute docstring. **This PR does not
support this position.**
## Test Plan
I used the following source code along with a print statement to verify
that the attribute docstring detection is correct.
Refer to the PR description for the code snippet.
I'll add this in the follow-up PR
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/11302) which uses this method.
## Summary
Lots of TODOs and things to clean up here, but it demonstrates the
working lint rule.
## Test Plan
```
➜ cat main.py
from typing import override
from base import B
class C(B):
@override
def method(self): pass
➜ cat base.py
class B: pass
➜ cat typing.py
def override(func):
return func
```
(We provide our own `typing.py` since we don't have typeshed vendored or
type stub support yet.)
```
➜ ./target/debug/red_knot main.py
...
1 0.012086s TRACE red_knot Main Loop: Tick
[crates/red_knot/src/main.rs:157:21] diagnostics = [
"Method C.method is decorated with `typing.override` but does not override any base class method",
]
```
If we add `def method(self): pass` to class `B` in `base.py` and run
red_knot again, there is no lint error.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
<!--
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
Resolves#11263
Detect `pathlib.Path.open` calls which do not specify a file encoding.
## Test Plan
Test cases added to fixture.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
This PR vendors typeshed!
- The first commit vendors the stdlib directory from typeshed into a new crates/red_knot/vendored_typeshed directory.
- The second commit adjusts various linting config files to make sure that the vendored code is excluded from typo checks, formatting checks, etc.
- The LICENSE and README.md files are also vendored, but all other directories and files (stubs, scripts, tests, test_cases, etc.) are excluded. We should have no need for them (except possibly stubs/, discussed in more depth below).
- Similar to the way pyright has a commit.txt file in its vendored copy of typeshed, to indicate which typeshed commit the vendored code corresponds to, I've also added a crates/red_knot/vendored_typeshed/source_commit.txt file in the third commit of this PR.
One open question is: should we vendor the stdlib and stubs directories, or just the stdlib directory? The stubs/ directory contains stubs for 162 third-party packages outside the stdlib. Mypy and typeshed_client1 only vendor the stdlib directory; pyright and pyre vendor both the stdlib and stubs directories; pytype vendors the entire typeshed repo (scripts/, tests/ and all).
In this PR, I've chosen to copy mypy and typeshed_client. Unlike vendoring the stdlib, which is unavoidable if we want to do typechecking of the stdlib, it's not strictly necessary to vendor the stubs directory: each subdirectory in stubs is published to PyPI as a standalone stubs distribution that can be (uv)-pip-installed into a virtual environment. It might be useful for our users if we vendored those stubs anyway, but there are costs as well as benefits to doing so (apart from just the sheer amount of vendored code in the ruff repository), so I'd rather consider it separately.
Resolves https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/11313
## Summary
PLR0912(too-many-branches) did not count branches inside with: blocks.
With this fix, the branches inside with statements are also counted.
## Test Plan
Added a new test case.
## Summary
After checking the links, I found that one link leads to 404. Correct me
if i'm wrong, but I think the link I changed to is the supposed one
