## Summary
Originally `join_with` was used in the formatters README.md. Now it uses
```rs
f.join_comma_separated(item.end())
.nodes(elts.iter())
.finish()
```
## Test Plan
None
## Summary
For formatter instabilities, the message we get look something like
this:
```text
Unstable formatting /home/konsti/ruff/target/checkouts/deepmodeling:dpdispatcher/dpdispatcher/slurm.py
@@ -47,9 +47,9 @@
- script_header_dict["slurm_partition_line"] = (
- NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
- )
+ script_header_dict[
+ "slurm_partition_line"
+ ] = NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
Unstable formatting /home/konsti/ruff/target/checkouts/deepmodeling:dpdispatcher/dpdispatcher/pbs.py
@@ -26,9 +26,9 @@
- pbs_script_header_dict["select_node_line"] += (
- NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
- )
+ pbs_script_header_dict[
+ "select_node_line"
+ ] += NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
```
For ruff crashes. you don't even get that but just the file that crashed
it. To extract the actual bug, you'd need to manually remove parts of
the file, rerun to see if the bug still occurs (and revert if it
doesn't) until you have a minimal example.
With this script, you run
```shell
cargo run --bin ruff_shrinking -- target/checkouts/deepmodeling:dpdispatcher/dpdispatcher/slurm.py target/minirepo/code.py "Unstable formatting" "target/debug/ruff_dev format-dev --stability-check target/minirepo"
```
and get
```python
class Slurm():
def gen_script_header(self, job):
if resources.queue_name != "":
script_header_dict["slurm_partition_line"] = f"#SBATCH --partition {resources.queue_name}"
```
which is an nice minimal example.
I've been using this script and it would be easier for me if this were
part of main. The main disadvantage to merging is that it adds
additional dependencies.
## Test Plan
I've been using this for a number of minimization. This is an internal
helper script you only run manually. I could add a test that minimizes a
rule violation if required.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
<!--
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 state variables that can be derived, merges related variables into a single state, and generally avoids `null` states.
## Test Plan
I clicked through the playground locally
<!-- 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 upgrades the playground's runtime and dev dependencies
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I tested the playground locally
<!-- 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
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Fixes#5739
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Manually tested:
```sh
$ tree dir
dir
├── dir.py
│ └── file.py
└── file.py
1 directory, 2 files
$ cargo run -p ruff_cli -- check dir --no-cache
Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.08s
Running `target/debug/ruff check dir --no-cache`
dir/dir.py/file.py:1:7: F821 Undefined name `a`
dir/file.py:1:7: F821 Undefined name `a`
Found 2 errors.
```
Is a unit test needed?
## Summary
This PR does some non-behavior-changing refactoring of the AST checker.
Specifically, it breaks the `Stmt`, `Expr`, and `ExceptHandler` visitors
into four distinct, consistent phases:
1. **Phase 1: Analysis**: Run any lint rules on the node.
2. **Phase 2: Binding**: Bind any symbols declared by the node.
3. **Phase 3: Recursion**: Visit all child nodes.
4. **Phase 4: Clean-up**: Pop scopes, etc.
There are some fuzzy boundaries in the last three phases, but the most
important divide is between the Phase 1 and all the others -- the goal
here is (as much as possible) to disentangle all of the vanilla
lint-rule calls from any other semantic analysis or model building.
Part of the motivation here is that I'm considering re-ordering some of
these phases, and it was just impossible to reason about that change as
long as we had miscellaneous binding-creation and scope-modification
code intermingled with lint rules. However, this could also enable us to
(e.g.) move the entire analysis phase elsewhere, and even with a more
limited API that has read-only access to `Checker` (but can push to a
diagnostics vector).
## Summary
Comparing repos with black requires that we use the settings as black,
notably line length and magic trailing comma behaviour. Excludes and
preserving quotes (vs. a preference for either quote style) is not yet
implemented because they weren't needed for the test projects.
In the other two commits i fixed the output when the progress bar is
hidden (this way is recommonded in the indicatif docs), added a
`scratch.pyi` file to gitignore because black formats stub files
differently and also updated the ecosystem readme with the projects json
without forks.
## Test Plan
I added a `line-length` vs `line_length` test. Otherwise only my
personal usage atm, a PR to integrate the script into the CI to check
some projects will follow.
## Summary
Closes#5628 by only emitting if `sep=","`. Includes documentation
(completes the `pandas-vet` ruleset).
Related to #2646.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
Moves the computation of the `start_offset` for overlong lines to just
before the result is returned. There is a slight overhead for overlong
lines (double the work for the first `limit` characters).
In practice this results in a speedup on the CPython codebase. Most
lines are not overlong, or are not enforced because the line ends with a
URL, or does not contain whitespace. Nonetheless, the 0.3% of overlong
lines are a lot compared to other violations.
### Before
_Selected W505 and E501_
_All rules_
### After
_Selected W505 and E501_
_All rules_
CPython line statistics:
- Number of Python lines: 867.696
- Number of overlong lines: 2.963 (0.3%)
<details>
Benchmark selected:
```shell
cargo build --release && hyperfine --warmup 10 --min-runs 50 \
"./target/release/ruff ./crates/ruff/resources/test/cpython/ --no-cache -e --select W505,E501"
```
Benchmark all:
```shell
cargo build --release && hyperfine --warmup 10 --min-runs 50 \
"./target/release/ruff ./crates/ruff/resources/test/cpython/ --no-cache -e --select ALL"
```
Overlong lines in CPython
```shell
cargo run -p ruff_cli -- check crates/ruff/resources/test/cpython/Lib --no-cache --select=E501,W505 --statistics
```
Total Python lines:
```shell
find crates/ruff/resources/test/cpython/ -name '*.py' | xargs wc -l
```
</details>
(Performance tested on Mac M1)
## Summary
The motivating change here is to remove `let range =
except_handler.try_identifier().unwrap();` and instead just do
`name.range()`, since exception names now have ranges attached to them
by the parse. This also required some refactors (which are improvements)
to the built-in attribute shadowing rules, since at least one invocation
relied on passing in the exception handler and calling
`.try_identifier()`. Now that we have easy access to identifiers, we can
remove the whole `AnyShadowing` abstraction.
## Summary
This is more similar to how these flags work in other contexts (e.g.,
`visit_annotation`), and also ensures that we unset it prior to visit
the `orelse` and `finalbody` (a subtle bug).
## Summary
The intent of this rule is to always flag the `global` declaration, not
the usage. The current implementation does the wrong thing if a global
is assigned multiple times. Using `semantic().global()` is also more
efficient.
## Summary
Adds autofix for `hasattr` case of B004. I don't think it's safe (or
simple) to implement it for the `getattr` case because, inter alia,
calling `getattr` may have side effects.
Fixes#3545
## Test Plan
Existing tests were sufficient. Updated snapshots
## Summary
There's a note in the docs that suggests this can be faster, and in the
benchmarks it... seems like it is? Might just be noise but held up over
a few runs.
Before:
<img width="1792" alt="Screen Shot 2023-07-15 at 9 10 06 PM"
src="973cd955-d4e6-4ae3-898e-90b7eb52ecf2">
After:
<img width="1792" alt="Screen Shot 2023-07-15 at 9 10 09 PM"
src="1491b391-d219-48e9-aa47-110bc7dc7f90">
## Summary
I'm doing some unrelated profiling, and I noticed that this method is
actually measurable on the CPython benchmark -- it's > 1% of execution
time. We don't need to lex here, we already know the ranges of all
comments, so we can just do a simple binary search for overlap, which
brings the method down to 0%.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
When required-imports is set with the syntax from ... import ... as ...,
autofix I002 is failing
## Test Plan
Reuse the same python files as
`crates/ruff/src/rules/isort/mod.rs:required_import` test.
## Summary
Previously, the `quoted-annotation` rule only removed quotes when `from
__future__ import annotations` was present. However, there are some
other cases in which this is also safe -- for example:
```python
def foo():
x: "MyClass"
```
We already model these in the semantic model, so this PR just expands
the scope of the rule to handle those.
<!--
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 uses the `join_comma_separated` builder for formatting set
expressions
to ensure the formatting preserves magic commas, if the setting is
enabled.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
See the fixed black tests
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Format `DictComp` like `ListComp` from #5600. It's not 100%, but I
figured maybe it's worth starting to explore.
## Test Plan
Added ruff fixture based on `ListComp`'s.
<!--
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 improves the parentheses handling for with items to get closer
to black's formatting.
### Case 1:
```python
# Black / Input
with (
[
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
+ cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
+ ddddddddddddddddd as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
):
...
# Before
with (
[
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1,
(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
+ cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
+ ddddddddddddddddd
) as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
):
...
```
Notice how Ruff wraps the binary expression in an extra set of
parentheses
### Case 2:
Black does not expand the with-items if the with has no parentheses:
```python
# Black / Input
with aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb as c:
...
# Before
with (
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb as c
):
...
```
Or
```python
# Black / Input
with [
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa * bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb * cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc + ddddddddddddddddd as example2, CtxManager222222222222222() as example2:
...
# Before (Same as Case 1)
with (
[
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1,
(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
* bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
* cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
+ ddddddddddddddddd
) as example2,
CtxManager222222222222222() as example2,
):
...
```
## Test Plan
I added new snapshot tests
Improves the django similarity index from 0.973 to 0.977
<!--
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
Format `SetComp` like `ListComp`.
## Test Plan
Derived from `ListComp`'s fixture.
## Summary
`B006` should allow using `bytes(...)` as an argument defaule value.
## Test Plan
A new test case
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
## Summary
Non-behavioral change, but this is the same in each branch. Visiting the
`func` first also means we've visited the `func` by the time we try to
resolve it (via `resolve_call_path`), which should be helpful in a
future refactor.
## Summary
The AST pass is broken up into three phases: pre-visit (which includes
analysis), recurse (visit all members), and post-visit (clean-up). We're
not supposed to edit semantic model flags in the pre-visit phase, but it
looks like we were for literal detection. This didn't matter in
practice, but I'm looking into some AST refactors for which this _does_
cause issues.
No behavior changes expected.
## Test Plan
Good test coverage on these.
## Summary
`PERF102` looks for unused keys or values in `dict.items()` calls, and
suggests instead using `dict.keys()` or `dict.values()`. Previously,
this check determined usage by looking for underscore-prefixed
variables. However, we can use the semantic model to actually detect
whether a variable is used. This has two nice effects:
1. We avoid odd false-positives whereby underscore-prefixed variables
are actually used.
2. We can catch more cases (fewer false-negatives) by detecting unused
loop variables that _aren't_ underscore-prefixed.
Closes#5692.
## Summary
Nested calls to `sorted` can only be collapsed if the calls are
identical (i.e., they have the exact same keyword arguments).
Update C414 to only flag such cases.
Fixes#5712
## Test Plan
Updated snapshots.
Tested against flake8-comprehensions. It incorrectly flags these cases.
