Changes the red-knot benchmark to run on the stdlib "tomllib" library
(which is self-contained, four files, uses type annotations) instead of
on very small bits of handwritten code.
Also remove the `without_parse` benchmark: now that we are running on
real code that uses typeshed, we'd either have to pre-parse all of
typeshed (slow) or find some way to determine which typeshed modules
will be used by the benchmark (not feasible with reasonable complexity.)
## Test Plan
`cargo bench -p ruff_benchmark --bench red_knot`
## Summary
This PR separates the current `red_knot` crate into two crates:
1. `red_knot` - This will be similar to the `ruff` crate, it'll act as
the CLI crate
2. `red_knot_workspace` - This includes everything except for the CLI
functionality from the existing `red_knot` crate
Note that the code related to the file watcher is in
`red_knot_workspace` for now but might be required to extract it out in
the future.
The main motivation for this change is so that we can have a `red_knot
server` command. This makes it easier to test the server out without
making any changes in the VS Code extension. All we need is to specify
the `red_knot` executable path in `ruff.path` extension setting.
## Test Plan
- `cargo build`
- `cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets --all-features`
- `cargo shear --fix`
## Summary
There's still a problem here. Given:
```python
class Class():
pass
# comment
# another comment
a = 1
```
We only add one newline before `a = 1` on the first pass, because
`max_precedling_blank_lines` is 1... We then add the second newline on
the second pass, so it ends up in the right state, but the logic is
clearly wonky.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/11508.
I hit this `todo!` trying to run type inference over some real modules.
Since it's a one-liner to implement it, I just did that rather than
changing to `Type::Unknown`.
## Summary
@zanieb noticed while we were discussing #12595 that this flag is now
unnecessary, so remove it and the flags which reference it.
## Test Plan
Question for maintainers: is there a test to add *or* remove here? (I’ve
opened this as a draft PR with that in view!)
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
- Add the popular LLM Ops project Dify to the user list in Readme, as
Dify introduced Ruff for lining since Feb 2024 in
https://github.com/langgenius/dify/pull/2366
## Summary
This pull request adds support for logging via `$/logTrace` RPC
messages. It also enables that code path for when a client is Zed editor
or VS Code (as there's no way for us to generically tell whether a client prefers
`$/logTrace` over stderr.
Related to: #12523
## Test Plan
I've built Ruff from this branch and tested it manually with Zed.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
