We probably want to introduce multiple explain subcommands and
overloading `explain` to explain it all seems like a bad idea.
We may want to introduce a subcommand to explain config options and
config options may end up having the same name as their rules, e.g. the
current `banned-api` is both a rule name (although not yet exposed to
the user) and a config option.
The idea is:
* `ruff rule` lists all rules supported by ruff
* `ruff rule <code>` explains a specific rule
* `ruff linter` lists all linters supported by ruff
* `ruff linter <name>` lists all rules/options supported by a specific linter
(After this commit only the 2nd case is implemented.)
This commit greatly simplifies the implementation of the CLI,
as well as the user expierence (since --help no longer lists all
options even though many of them are in fact incompatible).
To preserve backwards-compatability as much as possible aliases have
been added for the new subcommands, so for example the following two
commands are equivalent:
ruff explain E402 --format json
ruff --explain E402 --format json
However for this to work the legacy-format double-dash command has to
come first, i.e. the following no longer works:
ruff --format json --explain E402
Since ruff previously had an implicitly default subcommand,
this is preserved for backwards compatibility, i.e. the following two
commands are equivalent:
ruff .
ruff check .
Previously ruff didn't complain about several argument combinations that
should have never been allowed, e.g:
ruff --explain RUF001 --line-length 33
previously worked but now rightfully fails since the explain command
doesn't support a `--line-length` option.
I presume the reasoning for not including clippy in `pre-commit` was that it passes all files. This can be turned off with `pass_filenames`, in which case it only runs once.
`cargo +nightly dev generate-all` is also added (when excluding `target` is does not give false positives).
(The overhead of these commands is not much when the build is there. People can always choose to run only certain hooks with `pre-commit run [hook] --all-files`)
Accessed attributes that are Python constants should be considered for yoda-conditions
```py
## Error
JediOrder.YODA == age # SIM300
## OK
age == JediOrder.YODA
```
~~PS: This PR will fail CI, as the `main` branch currently failing.~~
SIM300 currently doesn't take Python constants into account when looking for Yoda conditions, this PR fixes that behavior.
```python
# Errors
YODA == age # SIM300
YODA > age # SIM300
YODA >= age # SIM300
# OK
age == YODA
age < YODA
age <= YODA
```
Ref: <https://github.com/home-assistant/core/pull/86793>
This isn't super consistent with some other rules, but... if you have a lone body, with a `pass`, followed by a comment, it's probably surprising if it gets removed. Let's retain the comment.
Closes#2231.
