## Summary
If the user is analyzing a script (i.e., we have no module path), it
seems reasonable to use the script name when trying to identify paths to
objects defined _within_ the script.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10960.
## Test Plan
Ran:
```shell
check --isolated --select=B008 \
--config 'lint.flake8-bugbear.extend-immutable-calls=["test.A"]' \
test.py
```
On:
```python
class A: pass
def f(a=A()):
pass
```
## Summary
The server now requests a [workspace diagnostic
refresh](https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifications/lsp/3.17/specification/#diagnostic_refresh)
when a configuration file gets changed. This means that diagnostics for
all open files will be automatically re-requested by the client on a
config change.
## Test Plan
You can test this by opening several files in VS Code, setting `select`
in your file configuration to `[]`, and observing that the diagnostics
go away once the file is saved (besides any `Pylance` diagnostics).
Restore it to what it was before, and you should see the diagnostics
automatically return once a save happens.
## Summary
I've added support for configuring the `ruff check` output file via the
environment variable `RUFF_OUTPUT_FILE` akin to #1731.
This is super useful when, e.g., generating a [GitLab code quality
report](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/testing/code_quality.html#implement-a-custom-tool)
while running Ruff as a pre-commit hook. Usually, `ruff check` should
print its human-readable output to `stdout`, but when run through
`pre-commit` _in a GitLab CI job_ it should write its output in `gitlab`
format to a file. So, to override these two settings only during CI,
environment variables come handy, and `RUFF_OUTPUT_FORMAT` already
exists but `RUFF_OUTPUT_FILE` has been missing.
A (simplified) GitLab CI job config for this scenario might look like
this:
```yaml
pre-commit:
stage: test
image: python
variables:
RUFF_OUTPUT_FILE: gl-code-quality-report.json
RUFF_OUTPUT_FORMAT: gitlab
before_script:
- pip install pre-commit
script:
- pre-commit run --all-files --show-diff-on-failure
artifacts:
reports:
codequality: gl-code-quality-report.json
```
## Test Plan
I tested it manually.
## Summary
This PR switches more callsites of `SemanticModel::is_builtin` to move
over to the new methods I introduced in #10919, which are more concise
and more accurate. I missed these calls in the first PR.
## Summary
Fixes#10866.
Introduces the `show_err_msg!` macro which will send a message to be
shown as a popup to the client via the `window/showMessage` LSP method.
## Test Plan
Insert various `show_err_msg!` calls in common code paths (for example,
at the beginning of `event_loop`) and confirm that these messages appear
in your editor.
To test that panicking works correctly, add this to the top of the `fn
run` definition in
`crates/ruff_server/src/server/api/requests/execute_command.rs`:
```rust
panic!("This should appear");
```
Then, try running a command like `Ruff: Format document` from the
command palette (`Ctrl/Cmd+Shift+P`). You should see the following
messages appear:
## Summary
Fixes#10780.
The server now send code actions to the client with a Ruff-specific
kind, `source.*.ruff`. The kind filtering logic has also been reworked
to support this.
## Test Plan
Add this to your `settings.json` in VS Code:
```json
{
"[python]": {
"editor.codeActionsOnSave": {
"source.organizeImports.ruff": "explicit",
},
}
}
```
Imports should be automatically organized when you manually save with
`Ctrl/Cmd+S`.
## Summary
Configuration is no longer the property of a workspace but rather of
individual documents. Just like the Ruff CLI, each document is
configured based on the 'nearest' project configuration. See [the Ruff
documentation](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/configuration/#config-file-discovery)
for more details.
To reduce the amount of times we resolve configuration for a file, we
have an index for each workspace that stores a reference-counted pointer
to a configuration for a given folder. If another file in the same
folder is opened, the configuration is simply re-used rather than us
re-resolving it.
## Guide for reviewing
The first commit is just the restructuring work, which adds some noise
to the diff. If you want to quickly understand what's actually changed,
I recommend looking at the two commits that come after it.
f7c073d441 makes configuration a property
of `DocumentController`/`DocumentRef`, moving it out of `Workspace`, and
it also sets up the `ConfigurationIndex`, though it doesn't implement
its key function, `get_or_insert`. In the commit after it,
fc35618f17, we implement `get_or_insert`.
## Test Plan
The best way to test this would be to ensure that the behavior matches
the Ruff CLI. Open a project with multiple configuration files (or add
them yourself), and then introduce problems in certain files that won't
show due to their configuration. Add those same problems to a section of
the project where those rules are run. Confirm that the lint rules are
run as expected with `ruff check`. Then, open your editor and confirm
that the diagnostics shown match the CLI output.
As an example - I have a workspace with two separate folders, `pandas`
and `scipy`. I created a `pyproject.toml` file in `pandas/pandas/io` and
a `ruff.toml` file in `pandas/pandas/api`. I changed the `select` and
`preview` settings in the sub-folder configuration files and confirmed
that these were reflected in the diagnostics. I also confirmed that this
did not change the diagnostics for the `scipy` folder whatsoever.
## Summary
This change adds a rule to detect functions declared `async` but lacking
any of `await`, `async with`, or `async for`. This resolves#9951.
## Test Plan
This change was tested by following
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/contributing/#rule-testing-fixtures-and-snapshots
and adding positive and negative cases for each of `await` vs nothing,
`async with` vs `with`, and `async for` vs `for`.
## Summary
This PR moves the `Q003` rule to AST checker.
This is the final rule that used the docstring detection state machine
and thus this PR removes it as well.
resolves: #7595resolves: #7808
## Test Plan
- [x] `cargo test`
- [x] Make sure there are no changes in the ecosystem
## Summary
Adds more aggressive logic to PLR1730, `if-stmt-min-max`
Closes#10907
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@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
Hi! 👋
Thanks for sharing ruff as software libre — it helps me keep Python code
quality up with pre-commit, both locally and CI 🙏
While studying the examples at
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/function-uses-loop-variable/#example I
noticed that the last of the examples had a bug: prior to this fix, `ì`
was passed to the lambda for `x` rather than for `i` — the two are
mixed-up. The reason it's easy to overlook is because addition is an
commutative operation and so `x + i` and `i + x` give the same result
(and least with integers), despite the mix-up. For proof, let me demo
the relevant part with before and after:
```python
In [1]: from functools import partial
In [2]: [partial(lambda x, i: (x, i), i)(123) for i in range(3)]
Out[2]: [(0, 123), (1, 123), (2, 123)]
In [3]: [partial(lambda x, i: (x, i), i=i)(123) for i in range(3)]
Out[3]: [(123, 0), (123, 1), (123, 2)]
```
Does that make sense?
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Was manually tested using IPython.
CC @r4f @grandchild
## Summary
If `RUF100` was included in a per-file-ignore, we respected it on cases
like `# noqa: F401`, but not the blanket variant (`# noqa`).
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/10906.
## Summary
Implement new rule: Prefer augmented assignment (#8877). It checks for
the assignment statement with the form of `<expr> = <expr>
<binary-operator> …` with a unsafe fix to use augmented assignment
instead.
## Test Plan
1. Snapshot test is included in the PR.
2. Manually test with playground.
Refs #3172
## Summary
Fix a typo in the docs example, and add a test for the case where a
negative pattern and a positive pattern overlap.
The behavior here is simple: patterns (positive or negative) are always
additive if they hit (i.e. match for a positive pattern, don't match for
a negated pattern). We never "un-ignore" previously-ignored rules based
on a pattern (positive or negative) failing to hit.
It's simple enough that I don't really see other cases we need to add
tests for (the tests we have cover all branches in the ignores_from_path
function that implements the core logic), but open to reviewer feedback.
I also didn't end up changing the docs to explain this more, because I
think they are accurate as written and don't wrongly imply any more
complex behavior. Open to reviewer feedback on this as well!
After some discussion, I think allowing negative patterns to un-ignore
rules is too confusing and easy to get wrong; if we need that, we should
add `per-file-selects` instead.
## Test Plan
Test/docs only change; tests pass, docs render and look right.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@gmail.com>
