## Summary
Enable using the new `Mode::Jupyter` for the tokenizer/parser to parse
Jupyter line magic tokens.
The individual call to the lexer i.e., `lex_starts_at` done by various
rules should consider the context of the source code (is this content
from a Jupyter Notebook?). Thus, a new field `source_type` (of type
`PySourceType`) is added to `Checker` which is being passed around as an
argument to the relevant functions. This is then used to determine the
`Mode` for the lexer.
## Test Plan
Add new test cases to make sure that the magic statement is considered
while generating the diagnostic and autofix:
* For `I001`, if there's a magic statement in between two import blocks,
they should be sorted independently
fixes: #6090
## Summary
This PR boxes the `TypeParams` and `Arguments` fields on the class
definition node. These fields are optional and often emitted, and given
that class definition is our largest enum variant, we pay the cost of
including them for every statement in the AST. Boxing these types
reduces the statement size by 40 bytes, which seems like a good tradeoff
given how infrequently these are accessed.
## Test Plan
Need to benchmark, but no behavior changes.
## Summary
Similar to #6259, this PR adds a `TypeParams` node to the AST, to
capture the list of type parameters with their surrounding brackets.
If a statement lacks type parameters, the `type_params` field will be
`None`.
## Summary
This PR adds a new `Arguments` AST node, which we can use for function
calls and class definitions.
The `Arguments` node spans from the left (open) to right (close)
parentheses inclusive.
In the case of classes, the `Arguments` is an option, to differentiate
between:
```python
# None
class C: ...
# Some, with empty vectors
class C(): ...
```
In this PR, we don't really leverage this change (except that a few
rules get much simpler, since we don't need to lex to find the start and
end ranges of the parentheses, e.g.,
`crates/ruff/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/lru_cache_without_parameters.rs`,
`crates/ruff/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/unnecessary_class_parentheses.rs`).
In future PRs, this will be especially helpful for the formatter, since
we can track comments enclosed on the node itself.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR renames...
- `Parameter#arg` to `Parameter#name`
- `ParameterWithDefault#def` to `ParameterWithDefault#parameter` (such
that `ParameterWithDefault` has a `default` and a `parameter`)
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR renames a few AST nodes for clarity:
- `Arguments` is now `Parameters`
- `Arg` is now `Parameter`
- `ArgWithDefault` is now `ParameterWithDefault`
For now, the attribute names that reference `Parameters` directly are
changed (e.g., on `StmtFunctionDef`), but the attributes on `Parameters`
itself are not (e.g., `vararg`). We may revisit that decision in the
future.
For context, the AST node formerly known as `Arguments` is used in
function definitions. Formally (outside of the Python context),
"arguments" typically refers to "the values passed to a function", while
"parameters" typically refers to "the variables used in a function
definition". E.g., if you Google "arguments vs parameters", you'll get
some explanation like:
> A parameter is a variable in a function definition. It is a
placeholder and hence does not have a concrete value. An argument is a
value passed during function invocation.
We're thus deviating from Python's nomenclature in favor of a scheme
that we find to be more precise.
<!--
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
This PR removes the `Interactive` and `FunctionType` parser modes that are unused by ruff
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
This PR removes the `type_comment` field which our parser doesn't support.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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
This PR removes the type ignore node from the AST because our parser doesn't support it, and just having it around is confusing.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo build`
<!-- How was it tested? -->
