mirror of
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff.git
synced 2025-11-02 12:58:20 +00:00
563daa8a86
Refs #3172 ## Summary Fix a typo in the docs example, and add a test for the case where a negative pattern and a positive pattern overlap. The behavior here is simple: patterns (positive or negative) are always additive if they hit (i.e. match for a positive pattern, don't match for a negated pattern). We never "un-ignore" previously-ignored rules based on a pattern (positive or negative) failing to hit. It's simple enough that I don't really see other cases we need to add tests for (the tests we have cover all branches in the ignores_from_path function that implements the core logic), but open to reviewer feedback. I also didn't end up changing the docs to explain this more, because I think they are accurate as written and don't wrongly imply any more complex behavior. Open to reviewer feedback on this as well! After some discussion, I think allowing negative patterns to un-ignore rules is too confusing and easy to get wrong; if we need that, we should add `per-file-selects` instead. ## Test Plan Test/docs only change; tests pass, docs render and look right. --------- Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@gmail.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| ruff | ||
| ruff_benchmark | ||
| ruff_cache | ||
| ruff_dev | ||
| ruff_diagnostics | ||
| ruff_formatter | ||
| ruff_index | ||
| ruff_linter | ||
| ruff_macros | ||
| ruff_notebook | ||
| ruff_python_ast | ||
| ruff_python_codegen | ||
| ruff_python_formatter | ||
| ruff_python_index | ||
| ruff_python_literal | ||
| ruff_python_parser | ||
| ruff_python_resolver | ||
| ruff_python_semantic | ||
| ruff_python_stdlib | ||
| ruff_python_trivia | ||
| ruff_server | ||
| ruff_shrinking | ||
| ruff_source_file | ||
| ruff_text_size | ||
| ruff_wasm | ||
| ruff_workspace | ||