## Summary
This PR fixes the bug where if a Notebook contained IPython syntax, then
the format command would fail. This was because the correct mode was not
being used while parsing through the formatter code path.
## Test Plan
This PR isn't the only requirement for Notebook formatting to start
working with IPython escape commands. The following PR in the stack is
required as well.
## Summary
Python 3.12 added the `__buffer__()`/`__release_buffer_()` special
methods, which are incorrectly flagged as invalid dunder methods by
`PLW3201`.
## Test Plan
Added definitions to the test suite, and confirmed they failed without
the fix and are ignored after the fix was done.
## Summary
The previous configuration for `ruff` contained an unrecognized field
`magic-trailing-comma` set to "respect". As of version 0.1.2 of `ruff`,
this field was not recognized and resulted in a TOML parse error when
running the `ruff format .` command. This change removes the
`magic-trailing-comma` field and adds the recognized
`skip-magic-trailing-comma` field set to `false`.
## Test Plan
Tested locally with `ruff` 0.1.2.
## Summary
Related to https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8135.
If we're not printing a `--diff`, or a summary of `--check` changes, we
can avoid sorting the list of results. Further, when sorting, we only
need to sort a small subset of the entries, in the common case (i.e., in
general, it's much more likely that a file is formatted than not).
## Test Plan
Local benchmarks suggest a 5-10% speedup on the cached behavior:
```
❯ hyperfine --warmup 3 "./target/release/ruff format ../airflow" "./target/release/sort format ../airflow"
Benchmark 1: ./target/release/ruff format ../airflow
Time (mean ± σ): 70.3 ms ± 5.2 ms [User: 52.1 ms, System: 59.0 ms]
Range (min … max): 68.3 ms … 101.7 ms 42 runs
Warning: Statistical outliers were detected. Consider re-running this benchmark on a quiet PC without any interferences from other programs. It might help to use the '--warmup' or '--prepare' options.
Benchmark 2: ./target/release/sort format ../airflow
Time (mean ± σ): 66.0 ms ± 1.4 ms [User: 48.3 ms, System: 58.4 ms]
Range (min … max): 64.7 ms … 71.8 ms 44 runs
Warning: Statistical outliers were detected. Consider re-running this benchmark on a quiet PC without any interferences from other programs. It might help to use the '--warmup' or '--prepare' options.
Summary
'./target/release/sort format ../airflow' ran
1.07 ± 0.08 times faster than './target/release/ruff format ../airflow'
```
Per some previous discussion, the policy is not clear about what happens
if the behavior is similar but the _scope_ in which a rule is applied
changes.
## Summary
This PR renames the `tab-size` configuration option to `indent-width` to
express that the formatter uses the option to determine the indentation
width AND as tab width.
I first preferred naming the option `tab-width` but then decided to go
with `indent-width` because:
* It aligns with the `indent-style` option
* It would allow us to write a lint rule that asserts that each
indentation uses `indent-width` spaces.
Closes#7643
## Test Plan
Added integration test
## Summary
This PR introduces a new `pycodestyl.max-line-length` option that allows overriding the global `line-length` option for `E501` only.
This is useful when using the formatter and `E501` together, where the formatter uses a lower limit and `E501` is only used to catch extra-long lines.
Closes#7644
## Considerations
~~Our fix infrastructure asserts in some places that the fix doesn't exceed the configured `line-width`. With this change, the question is whether it should use the `pycodestyle.max-line-width` or `line-width` option to make that decision.
I opted for the global `line-width` for now, considering that it should be the lower limit. However, this constraint isn't enforced and users not using the formatter may only specify `pycodestyle.max-line-width` because they're unaware of the global option (and it solves their need).~~
~~I'm interested to hear your thoughts on whether we should use `pycodestyle.max-line-width` or `line-width` to decide on whether to emit a fix or not.~~
Edit: The linter users `pycodestyle.max-line-width`. The `line-width` option has been removed from the `LinterSettings`
## Test Plan
Added integration test. Built the documentation and verified that the links are correct.
Adds a CI job which runs `ruff-lsp` tests against the current Ruff
build.
Avoids rebuilding Ruff at the cost of running _after_ the cargo tests
have finished. Might be worth the rebuild to get earlier feedback but I
don't expect it to fail often?
xref https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff-lsp/pull/286
## Test plan
Verified use of the development version by inspecting version output in
CI; supported by https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff-lsp/pull/289 and
#8034
## Summary
First time contribute to `ruff`, so If there are low-level errors,
please forgive me. 🙇
Introduce auto fix for `E275`, this partially address #8121.
## Test Plan
Already coverd.
<!--
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? -->
Close#8123
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
New test cases
---------
Signed-off-by: harupy <hkawamura0130@gmail.com>
## Summary
This was just a bug in the parser ranges, probably since it was
initially implemented. Given `match n % 3, n % 5: ...`, the "subject"
(i.e., the tuple of two binary operators) was using the entire range of
the `match` statement.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8091.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
