## Summary
Under preview 🧪 I've expanded rule `PYI016` to also flag type
union duplicates containing `None` and `Optional`.
## Test Plan
Examples/tests have been added. I've made sure that the existing
examples did not change unless preview is enabled.
## Relevant Issues
* https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18508 (discussing
introducing/extending a rule to flag `Optional[None]`)
* https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18546 (where I discussed this
addition with @AlexWaygood)
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
I think this should be the last step before combining `OldDiagnostic`
and `ruff_db::Diagnostic`. We can't store a `NoqaCode` on
`ruff_db::Diagnostic`, so I converted the `noqa_code` field to an
`Option<String>` and then propagated this change to all of the callers.
I tried to use `&str` everywhere it was possible, so I think the
remaining `to_string` calls are necessary. I spent some time trying to
convert _everything_ to `&str` but ran into lifetime issues, especially
in the `FixTable`. Maybe we can take another look at that if it causes a
performance regression, but hopefully these paths aren't too hot. We
also avoid some `to_string` calls, so it might even out a bit too.
## Test Plan
Existing tests
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This PR also supresses the fix if the assignment expression target
shadows one of the lambda's parameters.
Fixes#18675
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression tests.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Part of #15584
This PR adds a fix safety section to [fast-api-non-annotated-dependency
(FAST002)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/fast-api-non-annotated-dependency/#fast-api-non-annotated-dependency-fast002).
It also re-words the availability section since I found it confusing.
The lint/fix was added in #11579 as always unsafe.
No reasoning is given in the original PR/code as to why this was chosen.
Example of why the fix is unsafe:
https://play.ruff.rs/3bd0566e-1ef6-4cec-ae34-3b07cd308155
```py
from fastapi import Depends, FastAPI, Query
app = FastAPI()
# Fix will remove the parameter default value
@app.get("/items/")
async def read_items(commons: dict = Depends(common_parameters)):
return commons
# Fix will delete comment and change default parameter value
@app.get("/items/")
async def read_items_1(q: str = Query( # This comment will be deleted
default="rick")):
return q
```
After fixing both instances of `FAST002`:
```py
from fastapi import Depends, FastAPI, Query
from typing import Annotated
app = FastAPI()
# Fix will remove the parameter default value
@app.get("/items/")
async def read_items(commons: Annotated[dict, Depends(common_parameters)]):
return commons
# Fix will delete comment and change default parameter value
@app.get("/items/")
async def read_items_1(q: Annotated[str, Query()] = "rick"):
return q
```
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Here's the part that was split out of #18906. I wanted to move these
into the rule files since the rest of the rules in
`deferred_scope`/`statement` have that same structure of implementations
being in the rule definition file. It also resolves the dilemma of where
to put the comment, at least for these rules.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no test/functionality affected
Summary
--
Closes#18849 by adding a `## Known issues` section describing the
potential performance issues when fixing nested iterables. I also
deleted the comment check since the fix is already unsafe and added a
note to the `## Fix safety` docs.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests, updated to allow a fix when comments are present since
the fix is already unsafe.
Summary
--
This PR resolves the easiest part of
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18502 by adding an autofix that
just adds
`from __future__ import annotations` at the top of the file, in the same
way
as FA102, which already has an identical unsafe fix.
Test Plan
--
Existing snapshots, updated to add the fixes.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
From @ntBre
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18906#discussion_r2162843366 :
> This could be a good target for a follow-up PR, but we could fold
these `if checker.is_rule_enabled { checker.report_diagnostic` checks
into calls to `checker.report_diagnostic_if_enabled`. I didn't notice
these when adding that method.
>
> Also, the docs on `Checker::report_diagnostic_if_enabled` and
`LintContext::report_diagnostic_if_enabled` are outdated now that the
`Rule` conversion is basically free 😅
>
> No pressure to take on this refactor, just an idea if you're
interested!
This PR folds those calls. I also updated the doc comments by copying
from `report_diagnostic`.
Note: It seems odd to me that the doc comment for `Checker` says
`Diagnostic` while `LintContext` says `OldDiagnostic`, not sure if that
needs a bigger docs change to fix the inconsistency.
<details>
<summary>Python script to do the changes</summary>
This script assumes it is placed in the top level `ruff` directory (ie
next to `.git`/`crates`/`README.md`)
```py
import re
from copy import copy
from pathlib import Path
ruff_crates = Path(__file__).parent / "crates"
for path in ruff_crates.rglob("**/*.rs"):
with path.open(encoding="utf-8", newline="") as f:
original_content = f.read()
if "is_rule_enabled" not in original_content or "report_diagnostic" not in original_content:
continue
original_content_position = 0
changed_content = ""
for match in re.finditer(r"(?m)(?:^[ \n]*|(?<=(?P<else>else )))if[ \n]+checker[ \n]*\.is_rule_enabled\([ \n]*Rule::\w+[ \n]*\)[ \n]*{[ \n]*checker\.report_diagnostic\(", original_content):
# Content between last match and start of this one is unchanged
changed_content += original_content[original_content_position:match.start()]
# If this was an else if, a { needs to be added at the start
if match.group("else"):
changed_content += "{"
# This will result in bad formatting, but the precommit cargo format will handle it
changed_content += "checker.report_diagnostic_if_enabled("
# Depth tracking would fail if a string/comment included a { or }, but unlikely given the context
depth = 1
position = match.end()
while depth > 0:
if original_content[position] == "{":
depth += 1
if original_content[position] == "}":
depth -= 1
position += 1
# pos - 1 is the closing }
changed_content += original_content[match.end():position - 1]
# If this was an else if, a } needs to be added at the end
if match.group("else"):
changed_content += "}"
# Skip the closing }
original_content_position = position
if original_content[original_content_position] == "\n":
# If the } is followed by a \n, also skip it for better formatting
original_content_position += 1
# Add remaining content between last match and file end
changed_content += original_content[original_content_position:]
with path.open("w", encoding="utf-8", newline="") as f:
f.write(changed_content)
```
</details>
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
While making some of my other changes, I noticed some of the lints were
missing comments with their lint code/had the wrong numbered lint code.
These comments are super useful since they allow for very easily and
quickly finding the source code of a lint, so I decided to try and
normalize them.
Most of them were fairly straightforward, just adding a doc
comment/comment in the appropriate place.
I decided to make all of the `Pylint` rules have the `PL` prefix.
Previously it was split between no prefix and having prefix, but I
decided to normalize to with prefix since that's what's in the docs, and
the with prefix will show up on no prefix searches, while the reverse is
not true.
I also ran into a lot of rules with implementations in "non-standard"
places (where "standard" means inside a file matching the glob
`crates/ruff_linter/rules/*/rules/**/*.rs` and/or the same rule file
where the rule `struct`/`ViolationMetadata` is defined).
I decided to move all the implementations out of
`crates/ruff_linter/src/checkers/ast/analyze/deferred_scopes.rs` and
into their own files, since that is what the rest of the rules in
`deferred_scopes.rs` did, and those were just the outliers.
There were several rules which I did not end up moving, which you can
see as the extra paths I had to add to my python code besides the
"standard" glob. These rules are generally the error-type rules that
just wrap an error from the parser, and have very small
implementations/are very tightly linked to the module they are in, and
generally every rule of that type was implemented in module instead of
in the "standard" place.
Resolving that requires answering a question I don't think I'm equipped
to handle: Is the point of these comments to give quick access to the
rule definition/docs, or the rule implementation? For all the rules with
implementations in the "standard" location this isn't a problem, as they
are the same, but it is an issue for all of these error type rules. In
the end I chose to leave the implementations where they were, but I'm
not sure if that was the right choice.
<details>
<summary>Python script I wrote to find missing comments</summary>
This script assumes it is placed in the top level `ruff` directory (ie
next to `.git`/`crates`/`README.md`)
```py
import re
from copy import copy
from pathlib import Path
linter_to_code_prefix = {
"Airflow": "AIR",
"Eradicate": "ERA",
"FastApi": "FAST",
"Flake82020": "YTT",
"Flake8Annotations": "ANN",
"Flake8Async": "ASYNC",
"Flake8Bandit": "S",
"Flake8BlindExcept": "BLE",
"Flake8BooleanTrap": "FBT",
"Flake8Bugbear": "B",
"Flake8Builtins": "A",
"Flake8Commas": "COM",
"Flake8Comprehensions": "C4",
"Flake8Copyright": "CPY",
"Flake8Datetimez": "DTZ",
"Flake8Debugger": "T10",
"Flake8Django": "DJ",
"Flake8ErrMsg": "EM",
"Flake8Executable": "EXE",
"Flake8Fixme": "FIX",
"Flake8FutureAnnotations": "FA",
"Flake8GetText": "INT",
"Flake8ImplicitStrConcat": "ISC",
"Flake8ImportConventions": "ICN",
"Flake8Logging": "LOG",
"Flake8LoggingFormat": "G",
"Flake8NoPep420": "INP",
"Flake8Pie": "PIE",
"Flake8Print": "T20",
"Flake8Pyi": "PYI",
"Flake8PytestStyle": "PT",
"Flake8Quotes": "Q",
"Flake8Raise": "RSE",
"Flake8Return": "RET",
"Flake8Self": "SLF",
"Flake8Simplify": "SIM",
"Flake8Slots": "SLOT",
"Flake8TidyImports": "TID",
"Flake8Todos": "TD",
"Flake8TypeChecking": "TC",
"Flake8UnusedArguments": "ARG",
"Flake8UsePathlib": "PTH",
"Flynt": "FLY",
"Isort": "I",
"McCabe": "C90",
"Numpy": "NPY",
"PandasVet": "PD",
"PEP8Naming": "N",
"Perflint": "PERF",
"Pycodestyle": "",
"Pydoclint": "DOC",
"Pydocstyle": "D",
"Pyflakes": "F",
"PygrepHooks": "PGH",
"Pylint": "PL",
"Pyupgrade": "UP",
"Refurb": "FURB",
"Ruff": "RUF",
"Tryceratops": "TRY",
}
ruff = Path(__file__).parent / "crates"
ruff_linter = ruff / "ruff_linter" / "src"
code_to_rule_name = {}
with open(ruff_linter / "codes.rs") as codes_file:
for linter, code, rule_name in re.findall(
# The (?<! skips ruff test rules
# Only Preview|Stable rules are checked
r"(?<!#\[cfg\(any\(feature = \"test-rules\", test\)\)\]\n) \((\w+), \"(\w+)\"\) => \(RuleGroup::(?:Preview|Stable), [\w:]+::(\w+)\)",
codes_file.read(),
):
code_to_rule_name[linter_to_code_prefix[linter] + code] = (rule_name, [])
ruff_linter_rules = ruff_linter / "rules"
for rule_file_path in [
*ruff_linter_rules.rglob("*/rules/**/*.rs"),
ruff / "ruff_python_parser" / "src" / "semantic_errors.rs",
ruff_linter / "pyproject_toml.rs",
ruff_linter / "checkers" / "noqa.rs",
ruff_linter / "checkers" / "ast" / "mod.rs",
ruff_linter / "checkers" / "ast" / "analyze" / "unresolved_references.rs",
ruff_linter / "checkers" / "ast" / "analyze" / "expression.rs",
ruff_linter / "checkers" / "ast" / "analyze" / "statement.rs",
]:
with open(rule_file_path, encoding="utf-8") as f:
rule_file_content = f.read()
for code, (rule, _) in copy(code_to_rule_name).items():
if rule in rule_file_content:
if f"// {code}" in rule_file_content or f", {code}" in rule_file_content:
del code_to_rule_name[code]
else:
code_to_rule_name[code][1].append(rule_file_path)
for code, rule in code_to_rule_name.items():
print(code, rule[0])
for path in rule[1]:
print(path)
```
</details>
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected.
## Summary
This PR expands PGH005 to also check for AsyncMock methods in the same
vein. E.g., currently `assert mock.not_called` is linted. This PR adds
the corresponding async assertions `assert mock.not_awaited()`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
/closes #2331
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
update snapshots
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
This PR removes the last two places we were using `NoqaCode::rule` in
`linter.rs` (see
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391#discussion_r2154637329 and
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391#discussion_r2154649726) by
checking whether fixes are actually desired before adding them to a
`DiagnosticGuard`. I implemented this by storing a `Violation`'s `Rule`
on the `DiagnosticGuard` so that we could check if it was enabled in the
embedded `LinterSettings` when trying to set a fix.
All of the corresponding `set_fix` methods on `OldDiagnostic` were now
unused (except in tests where I just set `.fix` directly), so I moved
these to the guard instead of keeping both sets.
The very last place where we were using `NoqaCode::rule` was in the
cache. I just reverted this to parsing the `Rule` from the name. I had
forgotten to update the comment there anyway. Hopefully this doesn't
cause too much of a perf hit.
In terms of binary size, we're back down almost to where `main` was two
days ago
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391#discussion_r2155034320):
```
41,559,344 bytes for main 2 days ago
41,669,840 bytes for #18391
41,653,760 bytes for main now (after #18391 merged)
41,602,224 bytes for this branch
```
Only 43 kb up, but that shouldn't all be me this time :)
## Test Plan
Existing tests and benchmarks on this PR
## Summary
Resolves#18165
Added pattern `["sys", "version_info", "major"]` to the existing matches
for `sys.version_info` to ensure consistent handling of both the base
object and its major version attribute.
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run` and `cargo insta test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
/closes #17424
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
The fix would create a syntax error if there wasn't a space between the
`in` keyword and the following expression.
For example:
```python
for country, stars in(zip)(flag_stars.keys(), flag_stars.values()):...
```
I also noticed that the tests for `SIM911` were note being run, so I
fixed that.
Fixes#18776
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This PR fixes `PLC2801` autofix creating a syntax error due to lack of
padding if it is directly after a keyword.
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/18813
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Part of #15584
This adds a `Fix safety` section to [useless-object-inheritance
(UP004)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/useless-object-inheritance/#useless-object-inheritance-up004)
I could not track down the original PR as this rule is so old it has
gone through several large ruff refactors.
No reasoning is given on the unsafety in the PR/code.
The unsafety is determined here:
f24e650dfd/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/useless_class_metaclass_type.rs (L76-L80)
Unsafe fix demonstration:
[playground](https://play.ruff.rs/12b24eb4-d7a5-4ae0-93bb-492d64967ae3)
```py
class A( # will be deleted
object
):
...
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Part of #15584
This adds a `Fix safety` section to [unnecessary-future-import
(UP010)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/unnecessary-future-import/#unnecessary-future-import-up010)
The unsafety is determined here:
d9266284df/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/unnecessary_future_import.rs (L128-L132)
Unsafe code example:
[playground](https://play.ruff.rs/c07d8c41-9ab8-4b86-805b-8cf482d450d9)
```py
from __future__ import (print_function,# ...
__annotations__) # ...
```
Edit: It looks like there was already a PR for this, #17490, but I
missed it since they said `UP029` instead of `UP010` :/
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
N/A, no tests/functionality affected
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! 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? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
I've also found another bug while fixing this, where the diagnostic
would not trigger if the `len` call argument variable was shadowed. This
fixed a few false negatives in the test cases.
Example:
```python
fruits = []
fruits = []
if len(fruits): # comment
...
```
Fixes#18811Fixes#18812
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Add regression test
<!-- How was it tested? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <crmarsh416@gmail.com>
