This is an implementation of the discussion from #16719.
This change will allow list function calls to be replaced with
comprehensions:
```python
result = list()
for i in range(3):
result.append(i + 1)
# becomes
result = [i + 1 for i in range(3)]
```
I added a new test to `PERF401.py` to verify that this fix will now work
for `list()`.
## Summary
add fix safety section to replace_stdout_stderr and
super_call_with_parameters, for #15584
I checked the behavior and found that these two files could only
potentially delete the appended comments, so I submitted them as a PR.
The PR fixes#16457 .
Specifically, `FURB161` is marked safe, but the rule generates safe
fixes only in specific cases. Therefore, we attempt to mark the fix as
unsafe when we are not in one of these cases.
For instances, the fix is marked as aunsafe just in case of strings (as
pointed out in the issue). Let me know if I should change something.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
## Summary
This change adds an auto-fix for manual dict comprehensions. It also
copies many of the improvements from #13919 (and associated PRs fixing
issues with it), and moves some of the utility functions from
`manual_list_comprehension.rs` into a separate `helpers.rs` to be used
in both.
## Test Plan
I added a preview test case to showcase the new fix and added a test
case in `PERF403.py` to make sure lines with semicolons function. I
didn't yet make similar tests to the ones I added earlier to
`PERF401.py`, but the logic is the same, so it might be good to add
those to make sure they work.
add fix safety section to docs for #15584, I'm new to ruff and not sure
if the content of this PR is correct, but I hope it can be helpful.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
* Extend the following AIR311 rules
* `airflow.io.path.ObjectStoragePath` → `airflow.sdk.ObjectStoragePath`
* `airflow.io.storage.attach` → `airflow.sdk.io.attach`
* `airflow.models.dag.DAG` → `airflow.sdk.DAG`
* `airflow.models.DAG` → `airflow.sdk.DAG`
* `airflow.decorators.dag` → `airflow.sdk.dag`
* `airflow.decorators.task` → `airflow.sdk.task`
* `airflow.decorators.task_group` → `airflow.sdk.task_group`
* `airflow.decorators.setup` → `airflow.sdk.setup`
* `airflow.decorators.teardown` → `airflow.sdk.teardown`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test case has been added to the button of the existing test
fixtures, confirmed to be correct and later reorgnaized
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
As discussed in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/14626#issuecomment-2766146129,
we're to separate suggested changes from required changes.
The following symbols have been moved to AIR311 from AIR301. They still
work in Airflow 3.0, but they're suggested to be changed as they're
expected to be removed in a future version.
* arguments
* `airflow..DAG | dag`
* `sla_miss_callback`
* operators
* `sla`
* name
* `airflow.Dataset] | [airflow.datasets.Dataset` → `airflow.sdk.Asset`
* `airflow.datasets, rest @ ..`
* `DatasetAlias` → `airflow.sdk.AssetAlias`
* `DatasetAll` → `airflow.sdk.AssetAll`
* `DatasetAny` → `airflow.sdk.AssetAny`
* `expand_alias_to_datasets` → `airflow.sdk.expand_alias_to_assets`
* `metadata.Metadata` → `airflow.sdk.Metadata`
<!--airflow.models.baseoperator-->
* `airflow.models.baseoperator.chain` → `airflow.sdk.chain`
* `airflow.models.baseoperator.chain_linear` →
`airflow.sdk.chain_linear`
* `airflow.models.baseoperator.cross_downstream` →
`airflow.sdk.cross_downstream`
* `airflow.models.baseoperatorlink.BaseOperatorLink` →
`airflow.sdk.definitions.baseoperatorlink.BaseOperatorLink`
* `airflow.timetables, rest @ ..`
* `datasets.DatasetOrTimeSchedule` → *
`airflow.timetables.assets.AssetOrTimeSchedule`
* `airflow.utils, rest @ ..`
<!--airflow.utils.dag_parsing_context-->
* `dag_parsing_context.get_parsing_context` →
`airflow.sdk.get_parsing_context`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixture has been updated acccordingly
We weren't really using `chrono` for anything other than getting the
current time and formatting it for logs.
Unfortunately, this doesn't quite get us to a point where `chrono`
can be removed. From what I can tell, we're still bringing it via
[`tracing-subscriber`](https://docs.rs/tracing-subscriber/latest/tracing_subscriber/)
and
[`quick-junit`](https://docs.rs/quick-junit/latest/quick_junit/).
`tracing-subscriber` does have an
[issue open about Jiff](https://github.com/tokio-rs/tracing/discussions/3128),
but there's no movement on it.
Normally I'd suggest holding off on this since it doesn't get us all of
the way there and it would be better to avoid bringing in two datetime
libraries, but we are, it appears, already there. In particular,
`env_logger` brings in Jiff. So this PR doesn't really make anything
worse, but it does bring us closer to an all-Jiff world.
Summary
--
This PR implements detecting the use of `await` expressions outside of
async functions. This is a reimplementation of
[await-outside-async
(PLE1142)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/await-outside-async/) as a
semantic syntax error.
Despite the rule name, PLE1142 also applies to `async for` and `async
with`, so these are covered here too.
Test Plan
--
Existing PLE1142 tests.
I also deleted more code from the `SemanticSyntaxCheckerVisitor` to
avoid changes in other parser tests.
Summary
--
This PR reimplements [yield-outside-function
(F704)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/yield-outside-function/) as a
semantic syntax error. Despite the name, this rule covers `yield from`
and `await` in addition to `yield`.
Test Plan
--
New linter tests, along with the existing F704 test.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
Summary
--
This PR replaces uses of version-dependent imports from `typing` or
`typing_extensions` with a centralized `Checker::import_from_typing`
method.
The idea here is to make the fix for #9761 (whatever it ends up being)
applicable to all of the rules performing similar checks.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests for the affected rules.
## Summary
There is a new official URL for the typing documentation:
https://typing.python.org/
Change all https://typing.readthedocs.io/ links to use the new sub
domain, which is slightly shorter and looks more official.
## Test Plan
Tested to see if each and every new URL is accessible. I noticed that
some links go to https://typing.python.org/en/latest/source/stubs.html
which seems to be outdated, but that is a separate issue. The same page
shows up for the old URL.
## Summary
Based on the discussion in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17298#discussion_r2033975460, we
decided to move the scope handling out of the `SemanticSyntaxChecker`
and into the `SemanticSyntaxContext` trait. This PR implements that
refactor by:
- Reverting all of the `Checkpoint` and `in_async_context` code in the
`SemanticSyntaxChecker`
- Adding four new methods to the `SemanticSyntaxContext` trait
- `in_async_context`: matches `SemanticModel::in_async_context` and only
detects the nearest enclosing function
- `in_sync_comprehension`: uses the new `is_async` tracking on
`Generator` scopes to detect any enclosing sync comprehension
- `in_module_scope`: reports whether we're at the top-level scope
- `in_notebook`: reports whether we're in a Jupyter notebook
- In-lining the `TestContext` directly into the
`SemanticSyntaxCheckerVisitor`
- This allows modifying the context as the visitor traverses the AST,
which wasn't possible before
One potential question here is "why not add a single method returning a
`Scope` or `Scopes` to the context?" The main reason is that the `Scope`
type is defined in the `ruff_python_semantic` crate, which is not
currently a dependency of the parser. It also doesn't appear to be used
in red-knot. So it seemed best to use these more granular methods
instead of trying to access `Scope` in `ruff_python_parser` (and
red-knot).
## Test Plan
Existing parser and linter tests.
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
attribute check was missing in the previous implementation
e.g.
```python
from airflow.api.auth.backend import basic_auth
basic_auth.auth_current_user
```
This PR adds this kind of check.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test case has been added to the button of the existing test
fixtures, confirmed to be correct and later reorgnaized
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
* Simplify match conditions in AIR301
* Fix
* `airflow.datasets.manager.DatasetManager` →
`airflow.assets.manager.AssetManager`
* `airflow.www.auth.has_access_dataset` →
`airflow.www.auth.has_access_dataset`
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixture has been updated accordingly
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
As discussed in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/14626#issuecomment-2766146129,
we're to separate suggested changes from required changes.
The following symbols has been moved to AIR312 from AIR302. They still
work in Airflow 3.0, but they're suggested to be changed as they're
expected to be removed in future version
```python
from airflow.hooks.filesystem import FSHook
from airflow.hooks.package_index import PackageIndexHook
from airflow.hooks.subprocess import (SubprocessHook, SubprocessResult, working_directory)
from airflow.operators.bash import BashOperator
from airflow.operators.datetime import BranchDateTimeOperator, target_times_as_dates
from airflow.operators.trigger_dagrun import TriggerDagRunLink, TriggerDagRunOperator
from airflow.operators.empty import EmptyOperator
from airflow.operators.latest_only import LatestOnlyOperator
from airflow.operators.python import (BranchPythonOperator, PythonOperator, PythonVirtualenvOperator, ShortCircuitOperator)
from airflow.operators.weekday import BranchDayOfWeekOperator
from airflow.sensors.date_time import DateTimeSensor, DateTimeSensorAsync
from airflow.sensors.external_task import ExternalTaskMarker, ExternalTaskSensor, ExternalTaskSensorLink
from airflow.sensors.filesystem import FileSensor
from airflow.sensors.time_sensor import TimeSensor, TimeSensorAsync
from airflow.sensors.time_delta import TimeDeltaSensor, TimeDeltaSensorAsync, WaitSensor
from airflow.sensors.weekday import DayOfWeekSensor
from airflow.triggers.external_task import DagStateTrigger, WorkflowTrigger
from airflow.triggers.file import FileTrigger
from airflow.triggers.temporal import DateTimeTrigger, TimeDeltaTrigger
```
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The test fixture has been updated acccordingly
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <36778786+ntBre@users.noreply.github.com>
This fix closes#16868
I noticed the issue is assigned, but the assignee appears to be actively
working on another pull request. I hope that’s okay!
<!--
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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
As of Python 3.11.1, `enum.auto()` can be used in multiple assignments.
This pattern should not trigger non-unique-enums check.
Reference: [Python docs on
enum.auto()](https://docs.python.org/3/library/enum.html#enum.auto)
This fix updates the check logic to skip enum variant statements where
the right-hand side is a tuple containing a call to `enum.auto()`.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
The added test case uses the example from the original issue. It
previously triggered a false positive, but now passes successfully.
Summary
--
Detect async comprehensions nested in sync comprehensions in async
functions before Python 3.11, when this was [changed].
The actual logic of this rule is very straightforward, but properly
tracking the async scopes took a bit of work. An alternative to the
current approach is to offload the `in_async_context` check into the
`SemanticSyntaxContext` trait, but that actually required much more
extensive changes to the `TestContext` and also to ruff's semantic
model, as you can see in the changes up to
31554b473507034735bd410760fde6341d54a050. This version has the benefit
of mostly centralizing the state tracking in `SemanticSyntaxChecker`,
although there was some subtlety around deferred function body traversal
that made the changes to `Checker` more intrusive too (hence the new
linter test).
The `Checkpoint` struct/system is obviously overkill for now since it's
only tracking a single `bool`, but I thought it might be more useful
later.
[changed]: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/77527
Test Plan
--
New inline tests and a new linter integration test.
## Summary
### Improvement
Expand the following moved module into individual symbols.
* airflow.triggers.temporal
* airflow.triggers.file
* airflow.triggers.external_task
* airflow.hooks.subprocess
* airflow.hooks.package_index
* airflow.hooks.filesystem
* airflow.sensors.weekday
* airflow.sensors.time_delta
* airflow.sensors.time_sensor
* airflow.sensors.date_time
* airflow.operators.weekday
* airflow.operators.datetime
* airflow.operators.bash
This removes `Replacement::ImportPathMoved`.
## Fix
During the expansion, the following paths were also fixed
* airflow.sensors.s3_key_sensor.S3KeySensor →
airflow.providers.amazon.aws.sensors.S3KeySensor
* airflow.operators.sql.SQLThresholdCheckOperator →
airflow.providers.common.sql.operators.sql.SQLThresholdCheckOperator
* airflow.hooks.druid_hook.DruidDbApiHook →
airflow.providers.apache.druid.hooks.druid.DruidDbApiHook
* airflow.hooks.druid_hook.DruidHook →
airflow.providers.apache.druid.hooks.druid.DruidHook
* airflow.kubernetes.pod_generator.extend_object_field →
airflow.providers.cncf.kubernetes.pod_generator.extend_object_field
* airflow.kubernetes.pod_launcher.PodLauncher →
airflow.providers.cncf.kubernetes.pod_launcher_deprecated.PodLauncher
* airflow.kubernetes.pod_launcher.PodStatus →
airflow.providers.cncf.kubernetes.pod_launcher_deprecated.PodStatus
* airflow.kubernetes.pod_generator.PodDefaults →
airflow.providers.cncf.kubernetes.pod_generator.PodDefaults
* airflow.kubernetes.pod_launcher_deprecated.PodDefaults →
airflow.providers.cncf.kubernetes.pod_launcher_deprecated.PodDefaults
### Refactor
As many symbols are moved into the same module,
`SourceModuleMovedToProvider` is introduced for grouping similar logic
## Test Plan
This fix closes#17026
## Summary
The check for the `PytestRaisesTooBroad` rule is now skipped if there is
a second positional argument present, which means `pytest.raises` is
used as a function.
## Test Plan
Tested on the example from the issue, which now passes the check.
```Python3
pytest.raises(Exception, func, *func_args, **func_kwargs).match("error message")
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Closes#17042
## Summary
This PR fixes the issue outlined in #17042 where RUF100 (unused-noqa)
fails to detect unused file-level noqa directives (`# ruff: noqa` or `#
ruff: noqa: {code}`).
The issue stems from two underlying causes:
1. For blanket file-level directives (`# ruff: noqa`), there's a
circular dependency: the directive exempts all rules including RUF100
itself, which prevents checking for usage. This isn't changed by this
PR. I would argue it is intendend behavior - a blanket `# ruff: noqa`
directive should exempt all rules including RUF100 itself.
2. For code-specific file-level directives (e.g. `# ruff: noqa: F841`),
the handling was missing in the `check_noqa` function. This is added in
this PR.
## Notes
- For file-level directives, the `matches` array is pre-populated with
the specified codes during parsing, unlike line-level directives which
only populate their `matches` array when actually suppressing
diagnostics. This difference requires the somewhat clunky handling of
both cases. I would appreciate guidance on a cleaner design :)
- A more fundamental solution would be to change how file-level
directives initialize the `matches` array in
`FileNoqaDirectives::extract()`, but that requires more substantial
changes as it breaks existing functionality. I suspect discussions in
#16483 are relevant for this.
## Test Plan
- Local verification
- Added a test case and fixture
## Summary
Some of the migration rules has been changed during Airflow 3
development. The following are new AIR302 rules. Corresponding AIR301
has also been removed.
* airflow.sensors.external_task_sensor.ExternalTaskMarker →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.external_task.ExternalTaskMarker
* airflow.sensors.external_task_sensor.ExternalTaskSensor →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.external_task.ExternalTaskSensor
* airflow.sensors.external_task_sensor.ExternalTaskSensorLink →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.external_task.ExternalTaskSensorLink
* airflow.sensors.time_delta_sensor.TimeDeltaSensor →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.time_delta.TimeDeltaSensor
* airflow.operators.dagrun_operator.TriggerDagRunLink →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunLink
* airflow.operators.dagrun_operator.TriggerDagRunOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.trigger_dagrun.TriggerDagRunOperator
* airflow.operators.python_operator.BranchPythonOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.python.BranchPythonOperator
* airflow.operators.python_operator.PythonOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.python.PythonOperator
* airflow.operators.python_operator.PythonVirtualenvOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.python.PythonVirtualenvOperator
* airflow.operators.python_operator.ShortCircuitOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.python.ShortCircuitOperator
* airflow.operators.latest_only_operator.LatestOnlyOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.latest_only.LatestOnlyOperator
* airflow.sensors.date_time_sensor.DateTimeSensor →
airflow.providers.standard.sensors.DateTimeSensor
* airflow.operators.email_operator.EmailOperator →
airflow.providers.smtp.operators.smtp.EmailOperator
* airflow.operators.email.EmailOperator →
airflow.providers.smtp.operators.smtp.EmailOperator
* airflow.operators.bash.BashOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.bash.BashOperator
* airflow.operators.EmptyOperator →
airflow.providers.standard.operators.empty.EmptyOperator
closes: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/17103
## Test Plan
The test fixture has been updated and checked after each change and
later reorganized in the latest commit
Summary
--
This PR fixes the issue pointed out by @JelleZijlstra in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/17101#issuecomment-2777480204.
Namely, I conflated two very different errors from CPython:
```pycon
>>> def m[T](x: (yield from 1)): ...
File "<python-input-310>", line 1
def m[T](x: (yield from 1)): ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: yield expression cannot be used within the definition of a generic
>>> def m(x: (yield from 1)): ...
File "<python-input-311>", line 1
def m(x: (yield from 1)): ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: 'yield from' outside function
>>> def outer():
... def m(x: (yield from 1)): ...
...
>>>
```
I thought the second error was the same as the first, but `yield` (and
`yield from`) is actually valid in this position when inside a function
scope. The same is true for base classes, as pointed out in the original
comment.
We don't currently raise an error for `yield` outside of a function, but
that should be handled separately.
On the upside, this had the benefit of removing the
`InvalidExpressionPosition::BaseClass` variant and the
`allow_named_expr` field from the visitor because they were both no
longer used.
Test Plan
--
Updated inline tests.
Fixes: #17196
## Summary
Skipping these nodes for malformed type expressions would lead to
incorrect semantic state, which can in turn mean we emit false positives
for rules like `unused-variable`(`F841`)
## Test Plan
`cargo nextest run`
<!--
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?
-->
Closes#17084
## Summary
This PR adds a new rule (RUF102) to detect and fix invalid rule codes in
`noqa` comments.
Invalid rule codes in `noqa` directives serve no purpose and may
indicate outdated code suppressions.
This extends the previous behaviour originating from
`crates/ruff_linter/src/noqa.rs` which would only emit a warnigs.
With this rule a `--fix` is available.
The rule:
1. Analyzes all `noqa` directives to identify invalid rule codes
2. Provides autofix functionality to:
- Remove the entire comment if all codes are invalid
- Remove only the invalid codes when mixed with valid codes
3. Preserves original comment formatting and whitespace where possible
Example cases:
- `# noqa: XYZ111` → Remove entire comment (keep empty line)
- `# noqa: XYZ222, XYZ333` → Remove entire comment (keep empty line)
- `# noqa: F401, INVALID123` → Keep only valid codes (`# noqa: F401`)
## Test Plan
- Added tests in
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/RUF102.py` covering
different example cases.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Notes
- This does not handle cases where parsing fails. E.g. `# noqa:
NON_EXISTENT, ANOTHER_INVALID` causes a `LexicalError` and the
diagnostic is not propagated and we cannot handle the diagnostic. I am
also unsure what proper `fix` handling would be and making the user
aware we don't understand the codes is probably the best bet.
- The rule is added to the Preview rule group as it's a new addition
## Questions
- Should we remove the warnings, now that we have a rule?
- Is the current fix behavior appropriate for all cases, particularly
the handling of whitespace and line deletions?
- I'm new to the codebase; let me know if there are rule utilities which
could have used but didn't.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Summary
--
This PR detects the use of invalid syntax in annotation scopes,
including
`yield` and `yield from` expressions and named expressions. I combined a
few
different types of CPython errors here, but I think the resulting error
messages
still make sense and are even preferable to what CPython gives. For
example, we
report `yield expression cannot be used in a type annotation` for both
of these:
```pycon
>>> def f[T](x: (yield 1)): ...
File "<python-input-26>", line 1
def f[T](x: (yield 1)): ...
^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: yield expression cannot be used within the definition of a generic
>>> def foo() -> (yield x): ...
File "<python-input-28>", line 1
def foo() -> (yield x): ...
^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: 'yield' outside function
```
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/11118.
Test Plan
--
New inline tests, along with some updates to existing tests.
Summary
--
Detects duplicate attributes in a `match` class pattern:
```python
match x:
case Class(x=1, x=2): ...
```
which are more analogous to the similar check for mapping patterns than
to the
multiple assignments rule.
I also realized that both this and the mapping check would only work on
top-level patterns, despite the possibility that they can be nested
inside other
patterns:
```python
match x:
case [{"x": 1, "x": 2}]: ... # false negative in the old version
```
and moved these checks into the recursive pattern visitor instead.
I also tidied up some of the names like the `multiple_case_assignment`
function
and the `MultipleCaseAssignmentVisitor`, which are now doing more than
checking
for multiple assignments.
Test Plan
--
New inline tests for both classes and mappings.
<!--
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
I decided to disable the new
[`needless_continue`](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#needless_continue)
rule because I often found the explicit `continue` more readable over an
empty block or having to invert the condition of an other branch.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Summary
--
Detects duplicate literals in `match` mapping keys.
This PR also adds a `source` method to `SemanticSyntaxContext` to
display the duplicated key in the error message by slicing out its
range.
Test Plan
--
New inline tests.
We add support for `return` and `raise` statements in the control flow
graph: we simply add an edge to the terminal block, push the statements
to the current block, and proceed.
This implementation will have to be modified somewhat once we add
support for `try` statements - then we will need to check whether to
_defer_ the jump. But for now this will do!
Also in this PR: We fix the `unreachable` diagnostic range so that it
lumps together consecutive unreachable blocks.
## Summary
Following up the discussion in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/14626#issuecomment-2766548545,
we're to reorganize airflow rules. Before this discussion happens, we
combine required changes and suggested changes in to one single error
code.
This PR first rename the original error code to the new error code as we
discussed. We will gradually extract suggested changes out of AIR301 and
AIR302 to AIR311 and AIR312 in the following PRs
## Test Plan
Except for file, error code rename, the test case should work as it used
to be.
## Summary
Add autofix infrastructure to `AIR302` name checks and use this logic to
fix`"airflow", "api_connexion", "security", "requires_access_dataset"`, `"airflow", "Dataset"` and `"airflow",
"datasets", "Dataset"`
## Test Plan
The existing test fixture reflects the update
## Summary
Closes#17112. Allows passing in string and list-of-strings literals
into `subprocess.run` (and related) calls without marking them as
untrusted input:
```py
import subprocess
subprocess.run("true")
# "instant" named expressions are also allowed
subprocess.run(c := "ls")
```
## Test Plan
Added test cases covering new behavior, passed with `cargo nextest run`.
## Summary
* ``airflow.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.is_authorized_dataset`` has
been moved to
``airflow.api_fastapi.auth.managers.base_auth_manager.is_authorized_asset``
in Airflow 3.0
* ``airflow.auth.managers.models.resource_details.DatasetDetails`` has
been moved to
``airflow.api_fastapi.auth.managers.models.resource_details.AssetDetails``
in Airflow 3.0
* Dag arguments `default_view` and `orientation` has been removed in
Airflow 3.0
* `airflow.models.baseoperatorlink.BaseOperatorLink` has been moved to
`airflow.sdk.definitions.baseoperatorlink.BaseOperatorLink` in Airflow
3.0
* ``airflow.notifications.basenotifier.BaseNotifier`` has been moved to
``airflow.sdk.BaseNotifier`` in Airflow 3.0
* ``airflow.utils.log.secrets_masker`` has been moved to
``airflow.sdk.execution_time.secrets_masker`` in Airflow 3.0
* ``airflow...DAG.allow_future_exec_dates`` has been removed in Airflow
3.0
* `airflow.utils.db.create_session` has een removed in Airflow 3.0
* `airflow.sensors.base_sensor_operator.BaseSensorOperator` has been
moved to `airflow.sdk.bases.sensor.BaseSensorOperator` removed Airflow
3.0
* `airflow.utils.file.TemporaryDirectory` has been removed in Airflow
3.0 and can be replaced by `tempfile.TemporaryDirectory`
* `airflow.utils.file.mkdirs` has been removed in Airflow 3.0 and can be
replaced by `pathlib.Path({path}).mkdir`
## Test Plan
Test fixture has been added for these changes
## Summary
Unlike other AIR3XX rules, this best practice can be applied to Airflow
1 and Airflow 2 as well. Thus, we think it might make sense for use to
move it to AIR002 so that the first number of the error align to Airflow
version as possible to reduce confusion
## Test Plan
the test fixture has been updated
Summary
--
This PR reimplements
[load-before-global-declaration
(PLE0118)](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/load-before-global-declaration/)
as a semantic syntax error.
I added a `global` method to the `SemanticSyntaxContext` trait to make
this very easy, at least in ruff. Does red-knot have something similar?
If this approach will also work in red-knot, I think some of the other
PLE rules are also compile-time errors in CPython, PLE0117 in
particular. 0115 and 0116 also mention `SyntaxError`s in their docs, but
I haven't confirmed them in the REPL yet.
Test Plan
--
Existing linter tests for PLE0118. I think this actually can't be tested
very easily in an inline test because the `TestContext` doesn't have a
real way to track globals.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Summary
--
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16520 by flagging single,
starred expressions in `return`, `yield`, and
`for` statements.
I thought `yield from` would also be included here, but that error is
emitted by
the CPython parser:
```pycon
>>> ast.parse("def f(): yield from *x")
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<python-input-214>", line 1, in <module>
ast.parse("def f(): yield from *x")
~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/usr/lib/python3.13/ast.py", line 54, in parse
return compile(source, filename, mode, flags,
_feature_version=feature_version, optimize=optimize)
File "<unknown>", line 1
def f(): yield from *x
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
```
And we also already catch it in our parser.
Test Plan
--
New inline tests and updates to existing tests.
## Summary
Adds import `numpy.typing as npt` to `default in
flake8-import-conventions.aliases`
Resolves#17028
## Test Plan
Manually ran local ruff on the altered fixture and also ran `cargo test`
## Summary
I don't remember exactly when we made `Identifier` a node but it is now
considered a node (it implements `AnyNodeRef`, it has a range). However,
we never updated
the `SourceOrderVisitor` to visit identifiers because we never had a use
case for it and visiting new nodes can change how the formatter
associates comments (breaking change!).
This PR updates the `SourceOrderVisitor` to visit identifiers and
changes the formatter comment visitor to skip identifiers (updating the
visitor might be desired because it could help simplifying some comment
placement logic but this is out of scope for this PR).
## Test Plan
Tests, updated snapshot tests
