Summary
--
Updates `fuzz.py` to run with `--preview`, which should allow it to
catch semantic syntax errors.
Test Plan
--
@AlexWaygood and I temporarily made any named expression a semantic
syntax error and checked that this led to fuzzing errors. We also tested
that reverting the `--preview` addition did not show any errors.
We also ran the fuzzer on 500 seeds on `main` but didn't find any
issues, (un)fortunately.
Summary
--
This updates the regex in `ruff-ecosystem` to catch syntax errors in an
effort to prevent bugs like #16874. This should catch `ParseError`s,
`UnsupportedSyntaxError`s, and the upcoming `SemanticSyntaxError`s.
Test Plan
--
I ran the ecosystem check locally comparing v0.11.0 and v0.11.1 and saw
a large number (2757!) of new syntax errors. I also manually tested the
regex on a few lines before that.
If we merge this before #16878, I'd expect to see that number decrease
substantially in that PR too, as another test.
The red-knot CLI changed since the fuzzer script was added; update it to
work with current red-knot CLI.
Also add some notes on how to ensure local changes to the fuzzer script
are picked up.
## Summary
This PR builds on the changes in #16220 to pass a target Python version
to the parser. It also adds the `Parser::unsupported_syntax_errors` field, which
collects version-related syntax errors while parsing. These syntax
errors are then turned into `Message`s in ruff (in preview mode).
This PR only detects one syntax error (`match` statement before Python
3.10), but it has been pretty quick to extend to several other simple
errors (see #16308 for example).
## Test Plan
The current tests are CLI tests in the linter crate, but these could be
supplemented with inline parser tests after #16357.
I also tested the display of these syntax errors in VS Code:
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <alex.waygood@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR gets rid of the `requirements.in` and `requirements.txt` files
in the `scripts/fuzz-parser` directory, and replaces them with
`pyproject.toml` and `uv.lock` files. The script is renamed from
`fuzz-parser` to `py-fuzzer` (since it can now also be used to fuzz
red-knot as well as the parser, following
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/14566), and moved from the
`scripts/` directory to the `python/` directory, since it's now a
(uv)-pip-installable project in its own right.
I've been resisting this for a while, because conceptually this script
just doesn't feel "complicated" enough to me for it to be a full-blown
package. However, I think it's time to do this. Making it a proper
package has several advantages:
- It means we can run it from the project root using `uv run` without
having to activate a virtual environment and ensure that all required
dependencies are installed into that environment
- Using a `pyproject.toml` file means that we can express that the
project requires Python 3.12+ to run properly; this wasn't possible
before
- I've been running mypy on the project locally when I've been working
on it or reviewing other people's PRs; now I can put the mypy config for
the project in the `pyproject.toml` file
## Test Plan
I manually tested that all the commands detailed in
`python/py-fuzzer/README.md` work for me locally.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Peter <sharkdp@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Changes in this PR https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/13591 did not
allow correct discovery in pip build environments.
```python
# both of these variables are tuple[str, str] (length is 2)
first, second = os.path.split(paths[0]), os.path.split(paths[1])
# so these length checks are guaranteed to fail even for build environment folders
if (
len(first) >= 3
and len(second) >= 3
...
)
```
~~Here we instead use `pathlib`, and we check all `pip-build-env-` paths
for the folder that is expected to contain the `ruff` executable.~~
Here we update the logic to more properly split out the path components
that we use for `pip-build-env-` inspection.
## Test Plan
I've checked this manually against a workflow that was failing, I'm not
sure what to do for real tests. The same issues apply as with the
previous PR.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Surany <jsurany@bloomberg.net>
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
Resolves https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/13321.
Contents of overlay:
```bash
/private/var/folders/v0/l8q3ghks2gs5ns2_p63tyqh40000gq/T/pip-build-env-e0ukpbvo/overlay/bin:
total 26M
-rwxr-xr-x 1 bgabor8 staff 26M Oct 1 08:22 ruff
drwxr-xr-x 3 bgabor8 staff 96 Oct 1 08:22 .
drwxr-xr-x 4 bgabor8 staff 128 Oct 1 08:22 ..
```
Python executable:
```bash
'/Users/bgabor8/git/github/ruff-find-bin-during-build/.venv/bin/python'
```
PATH is:
```bash
['/private/var/folders/v0/l8q3ghks2gs5ns2_p63tyqh40000gq/T/pip-build-env-e0ukpbvo/overlay/bin',
'/private/var/folders/v0/l8q3ghks2gs5ns2_p63tyqh40000gq/T/pip-build-env-e0ukpbvo/normal/bin',
'/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.11/bin',
'/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.12/bin',
```
Not sure where to add tests, there does not seem to be any existing one.
Can someone help me with that?
## 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
Follow-up to https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/12129 to remove the
`demisto/content` from ecosystem checks. The previous PR removed it from
the deprecated script which I didn't notice until recently.
## Test Plan
Ecosystem comment
## Summary
Something's up with this repo -- they added a post-checkout hook? So
let's just remove it for now. We should go through and add a new batch
of repositories some time.
Fixes#11246
## Summary
This change adds an intermediate additional search path for
`find_ruff_bin`.
I would have added this path as the last one, except that the last one
is the one reported to the user, so I made this one second to last.
## Test Plan
It's shown to work with this command:
```
~ @ pip-run git+https://github.com/jaraco/ruff@feature/honor-install-target-bin -- -m ruff --version
ruff 0.4.4
```
I tried running the same command on Windows, which should work in
theory, but building ruff from source on Windows is complicated. Even
after installing Rust, ruff fails to build when `libmimalloc-sys` fails
to build because `gcc` isn't installed (and the error message points to
a [broken
anchor](https://github.com/rust-lang/cc-rs#compile-time-requirements)).
I was really hoping Rust would get us away from the Windows as
second-class-citizen model :(.
It's a pretty big codebase using lots of different stuff, so a good
candidate for finding obscure problems.
I didn't look more closely which options are used (I have the feeling
`--select ALL` is not implied, since I see you adding it via
`check_options` for certain entries but not for others), the repo itself
has a pretty large ruff.toml - but assuming ecosystem just cares about
differences between base and head of a PR, `ALL` most likely makes
sense.
Fixes a regression in the ecosystem checks from
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/9687 which was causing them to
run for multiple hours due to the size of the output.
We need the concise format for comparisons.
We should probably update the ecosystem checks to actually diff the full
output in the future because that'd be nice.
# Conflicts:
# python/ruff-ecosystem/ruff_ecosystem/projects.py
Updated implementation of https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/7369
which was left out in the cold.
This was motivated again following changes in #9691 and #9689 where we
could not test the changes without actually deprecating or removing
rules.
---
Follow-up to discussion in https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/7210
Moves integration tests from using rules that are transitively in
nursery / preview groups to dedicated test rules that only exist during
development. These rules always raise violations (they do not require
specific file behavior). The rules are not available in production or in
the documentation.
Uses features instead of `cfg(test)` for cross-crate support per
https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/8379
Uses our existing configuration overrides to unset the
`required-version` option in ecosystem projects during checks.
The downside to this approach, is we will now update the config file of
_every_ project (with a config file). This roughly normalizes the configuration file, as we
don't preserve comments and such. We could instead do a more targeted
approach applying this override to projects which we know use this
setting 🤷♀️
