Summary
--
Inspired by #20859, this PR adds the version a rule was added, and the
file and line where it was defined, to `ViolationMetadata`. The file and
line just use the standard `file!` and `line!` macros, while the more
interesting version field uses a new `violation_metadata` attribute
parsed by our `ViolationMetadata` derive macro.
I moved the commit modifying all of the rule files to the end, so it
should be a lot easier to review by omitting that one.
As a curiosity and a bit of a sanity check, I also plotted the rule
numbers over time:
<img width="640" height="480" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/75b0b5cc-3521-4d40-a395-8807e6f4925f"
/>
I think this looks pretty reasonable and avoids some of the artifacts
the earlier versions of the script ran into, such as the `rule`
sub-command not being available or `--explain` requiring a file
argument.
<details><summary>Script and summary data</summary>
```shell
gawk --csv '
NR > 1 {
split($2, a, ".")
major = a[1]; minor = a[2]; micro = a[3]
# sum the number of rules added per minor version
versions[minor] += 1
}
END {
tot = 0
for (i = 0; i <= 14; i++) {
tot += versions[i]
print i, tot
}
}
' ruff_rules_metadata.csv > summary.dat
```
```
0 696
1 768
2 778
3 803
4 822
5 848
6 855
7 865
8 893
9 915
10 916
11 924
12 929
13 932
14 933
```
</details>
Test Plan
--
I built and viewed the documentation locally, and it looks pretty good!
<img width="1466" height="676" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5e227df4-7294-4d12-bdaa-31cac4e9ad5c"
/>
The spacing seems a bit awkward following the `h1` at the top, so I'm
wondering if this might look nicer as a footer in Ruff. The links work
well too:
- [v0.0.271](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/releases/tag/v0.0.271)
- [Related
issues](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues?q=sort%3Aupdated-desc%20is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20airflow-variable-name-task-id-mismatch)
- [View
source](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/main/crates%2Fruff_linter%2Fsrc%2Frules%2Fairflow%2Frules%2Ftask_variable_name.rs#L34)
The last one even works on `main` now since it points to the
`derive(ViolationMetadata)` line.
In terms of binary size, this branch is a bit bigger than main with
38,654,520 bytes compared to 38,635,728 (+20 KB). I guess that's not
_too_ much of an increase, but I wanted to check since we're generating
a lot more code with macros.
---------
Co-authored-by: GiGaGon <107241144+MeGaGiGaGon@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
I spun this off from #19919 to separate the rendering code change and
snapshot updates from the (much smaller) changes to expose this in the
CLI. I grouped all of the `ruff_linter` snapshot changes in the final
commit in an effort to make this easier to review. The code changes are
in [this
range](619395eb41).
I went through all of the snapshots, albeit fairly quickly, and they all
looked correct to me. In the last few commits I was trying to resolve an
existing issue in the alignment of the line number separator:
73720c73be/crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/flake8_comprehensions/snapshots/ruff_linter__rules__flake8_comprehensions__tests__C409_C409.py.snap (L87-L89)
In the snapshot above on `main`, you can see that a double-digit line
number at the end of the context lines for a snippet was causing a
misalignment with the other separators. That's now resolved. The one
downside is that this can lead to a mismatch with the diagnostic above:
```
C409 [*] Unnecessary list literal passed to `tuple()` (rewrite as a tuple literal)
--> C409.py:4:6
|
2 | t2 = tuple([1, 2])
3 | t3 = tuple((1, 2))
4 | t4 = tuple([
| ______^
5 | | 1,
6 | | 2
7 | | ])
| |__^
8 | t5 = tuple(
9 | (1, 2)
|
help: Rewrite as a tuple literal
1 | t1 = tuple([])
2 | t2 = tuple([1, 2])
3 | t3 = tuple((1, 2))
- t4 = tuple([
4 + t4 = (
5 | 1,
6 | 2
- ])
7 + )
8 | t5 = tuple(
9 | (1, 2)
10 | )
note: This is an unsafe fix and may remove comments or change runtime behavior
```
But I don't think we can avoid that without really reworking this
rendering to make the diagnostic and diff rendering aware of each other.
Anyway, this should only happen in relatively rare cases where the
diagnostic is near a digit boundary and also near a context boundary.
Most of our diagnostics line up nicely.
Another potential downside of the new rendering format is its handling
of long stretches of `+` or `-` lines:
```
help: Replace with `Literal[...] | None`
21 | ...
22 |
23 |
- def func6(arg1: Literal[
- "hello",
- None # Comment 1
- , "world"
- ]):
24 + def func6(arg1: Literal["hello", "world"] | None):
25 | ...
26 |
27 |
note: This is an unsafe fix and may remove comments or change runtime behavior
```
To me it just seems a little hard to tell what's going on with just a
long streak of `-`-prefixed lines. I saw an even more exaggerated
example at some point, but I think this is also fairly rare. Most of the
snapshots seem more like the examples we looked at on Discord with
plenty of `|` lines and pairs of `+` and `-` lines.
## Test Plan
Existing tests plus one new test in `ruff_db` to isolate a line
separator alignment issue
## Summary
This PR switches the `full` output format in Ruff over to use the
rendering code
in `ruff_db`. As proposed in the design doc, this involves a lot of
changes to the snapshot output.
I also had to comment out this assertion with a TODO to replace it after
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/19688 because many of Ruff's
"file-level" annotations aren't actually file-level. They just happen to
occur at the start of the file, especially in tests with very short
snippets.
529d81daca/crates/ruff_annotate_snippets/src/renderer/display_list.rs (L1204-L1208)
I broke up the snapshot commits at the end into several blocks, but I
don't think it's enough to help with review. The first few (notebooks,
syntax errors, and test rules) are small enough to look at, but I
couldn't really think of other categories beyond that. I'm happy to
break those up or pick out specific examples beyond what I have below,
if that would help.
The minimal code changes are in this
[range](abd28f1e77),
with the snapshot commits following. Moving the `FullRenderer` and
updating the `EmitterFlags` aren't strictly necessary either. I even
dropped the renderer commit this morning but figured it made sense to
keep it since we have the `full` module for tests. I don't feel strongly
either way.
## Test Plan
I did actually click through all 1700 snapshots individually instead of
accepting them all at once, although I moved through them quickly. There
are a
few main categories:
### Lint diagnostics
```diff
-unused.py:8:19: F401 [*] `pathlib` imported but unused
+F401 [*] `pathlib` imported but unused
+ --> unused.py:8:19
|
7 | # Unused, _not_ marked as required (due to the alias).
8 | import pathlib as non_alias
- | ^^^^^^^^^ F401
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
9 |
10 | # Unused, marked as required.
|
- = help: Remove unused import: `pathlib`
+help: Remove unused import: `pathlib`
```
- The filename and line numbers are moved to the second line
- The second noqa code next to the underline is removed
### Syntax errors
These are much like the above.
```diff
- -:1:16: invalid-syntax: Expected one or more symbol names after import
+ invalid-syntax: Expected one or more symbol names after import
+ --> -:1:16
|
1 | from foo import
| ^
```
One thing I noticed while reviewing some of these, but I don't think is
strictly syntax-error-related, is that some of the new diagnostics have
a little less context after the error. I don't think this is a problem,
but it's one small discrepancy I hadn't noticed before. Here's a minor
example:
```diff
-syntax_errors.py:1:15: invalid-syntax: Expected one or more symbol names after import
+invalid-syntax: Expected one or more symbol names after import
+ --> syntax_errors.py:1:15
|
1 | from os import
| ^
2 |
3 | if call(foo
-4 | def bar():
|
```
And one of the biggest examples:
```diff
-E30_syntax_error.py:18:11: invalid-syntax: Expected ')', found newline
+invalid-syntax: Expected ')', found newline
+ --> E30_syntax_error.py:18:11
|
16 | pass
17 |
18 | foo = Foo(
| ^
-19 |
-20 |
-21 | def top(
|
```
Similarly, a few of the lint diagnostics showed that the cut indicator
calculation for overly long lines is also slightly different, but I
think that's okay too.
### Full-file diagnostics
```diff
-comment.py:1:1: I002 [*] Missing required import: `from __future__ import annotations`
+I002 [*] Missing required import: `from __future__ import annotations`
+--> comment.py:1:1
+help: Insert required import: `from __future__ import annotations`
+
```
As noted above, these will be much more rare after #19688 too. This case
isn't a true full-file diagnostic and will render a snippet in the
future, but you can see that we're now rendering the help message that
would have been discarded before. In contrast, this is a true full-file
diagnostic and should still look like this after #19688:
```diff
-__init__.py:1:1: A005 Module `logging` shadows a Python standard-library module
+A005 Module `logging` shadows a Python standard-library module
+--> __init__.py:1:1
```
### Jupyter notebooks
There's nothing particularly different about these, just showing off the
cell index again.
```diff
- Jupyter.ipynb:cell 3:1:7: F821 Undefined name `x`
+ F821 Undefined name `x`
+ --> Jupyter.ipynb:cell 3:1:7
|
1 | print(x)
- | ^ F821
+ | ^
|
```
Summary
--
This PR unifies the remaining differences between `OldDiagnostic` and
`Message` (`OldDiagnostic` was only missing an optional `noqa_offset`
field) and
replaces `Message` with `OldDiagnostic`.
The biggest functional difference is that the combined `OldDiagnostic`
kind no
longer implements `AsRule` for an infallible conversion to `Rule`. This
was
pretty easy to work around with `is_some_and` and `is_none_or` in the
few places
it was needed. In `LintContext::report_diagnostic_if_enabled` we can
just use
the new `Violation::rule` method, which takes care of most cases.
Most of the interesting changes are in [this
range](8156992540)
before I started renaming.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
Future Work
--
I think it's time to start shifting some of these fields to the new
`Diagnostic`
kind. I believe we want `Fix` for sure, but I'm less sure about the
others. We
may want to keep a thin wrapper type here anyway to implement a `rule`
method,
so we could leave some of these fields on that too.
## Summary
As the title says, this PR removes the `Message::to_rule` method by
replacing related uses of `Rule` with `NoqaCode` (or the rule's name in
the case of the cache). Where it seemed a `Rule` was really needed, we
convert back to the `Rule` by parsing either the rule name (with
`str::parse`) or the `NoqaCode` (with `Rule::from_code`).
I thought this was kind of like cheating and that it might not resolve
this part of Micha's
[comment](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/18391#issuecomment-2933764275):
> because we can't add Rule to Diagnostic or **have it anywhere in our
shared rendering logic**
but after looking again, the only remaining `Rule` conversion in
rendering code is for the SARIF output format. The other two non-test
`Rule` conversions are for caching and writing a fix summary, which I
don't think fall into the shared rendering logic. That leaves the SARIF
format as the only real problem, but maybe we can delay that for now.
The motivation here is that we won't be able to store a `Rule` on the
new `Diagnostic` type, but we should be able to store a `NoqaCode`,
likely as a string.
## Test Plan
Existing tests
##
[Benchmarks](https://codspeed.io/astral-sh/ruff/branches/brent%2Fremove-to-rule)
Almost no perf regression, only -1% on
`linter/default-rules[large/dataset.py]`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Summary
--
This PR adds a `DiagnosticGuard` type to ruff that is adapted from the
`DiagnosticGuard` and `LintDiagnosticGuard` types from ty. This guard is
returned by `Checker::report_diagnostic` and derefs to a
`ruff_diagnostics::Diagnostic` (`OldDiagnostic`), allowing methods like
`OldDiagnostic::set_fix` to be called on the result. On `Drop` the
`DiagnosticGuard` pushes its contained `OldDiagnostic` to the `Checker`.
The main motivation for this is to make a following PR adding a
`SourceFile` to each diagnostic easier. For every rule where a `Checker`
is available, this will now only require modifying
`Checker::report_diagnostic` rather than all the rules.
In the few cases where we need to create a diagnostic before we know if
we actually want to emit it, there is a `DiagnosticGuard::defuse`
method, which consumes the guard without emitting the diagnostic. I was
able to restructure about half of the rules that naively called this to
avoid calling it, but a handful of rules still need it.
One of the fairly common patterns where `defuse` was needed initially
was something like
```rust
let diagnostic = Diagnostic::new(DiagnosticKind, range);
if !checker.enabled(diagnostic.rule()) {
return;
}
```
So I also added a `Checker::checked_report_diagnostic` method that
handles this check internally. That helped to avoid some additional
`defuse` calls. The name is a bit repetitive, so I'm definitely open to
suggestions there. I included a warning against using it in the docs
since, as we've seen, the conversion from a diagnostic to a rule is
actually pretty expensive.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests
<!--
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? -->
Skip attribute check in try catch block (`AIR301`)
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update
`crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/airflow/AIR301_names_try.py`
<!--
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
I decided to disable the new
[`needless_continue`](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#needless_continue)
rule because I often found the explicit `continue` more readable over an
empty block or having to invert the condition of an other branch.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
Add autofix infrastructure to `AIR302` name checks and use this logic to
fix`"airflow", "api_connexion", "security", "requires_access_dataset"`, `"airflow", "Dataset"` and `"airflow",
"datasets", "Dataset"`
## Test Plan
The existing test fixture reflects the update
I am working on a project that uses ruff linters' docs to generate a
fine-tuning dataset for LLMs.
To achieve this, I first ran the command `ruff rule --all
--output-format json` to retrieve all the rules. Then, I parsed the
explanation field to get these 3 consistent sections:
- `Why is this bad?`
- `What it does`
- `Example`
However, during the initial processing, I noticed that the markdown
headings are not that consistent. For instance:
- In most cases, `Use instead` appears as a normal paragraph within the
`Example` section, but in the file
`crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/flake8_bandit/rules/django_extra.rs` it is
a level-2 heading
- The heading "What it does**?**" is used in some places, while others
consistently use "What it does"
- There are 831 `Example` headings and 65 `Examples`. But all of them
only have one example case
This PR normalized these across all rules.
## Test Plan
CI are passed.
This very large PR changes the field `.diagnostics` in the `Checker`
from a `Vec<Diagnostic>` to a `RefCell<Vec<Diagnostic>>`, adds methods
to push new diagnostics to this cell, and then removes unnecessary
mutability throughout all of our lint rule implementations.
Consequently, the compiler may now enforce what was, till now, the
_convention_ that the only changes to the `Checker` that can happen
during a lint are the addition of diagnostics[^1].
The PR is best reviewed commit-by-commit. I have tried to keep the large
commits limited to "bulk actions that you can easily see are performing
the same find/replace on a large number of files", and separate anything
ad-hoc or with larger diffs. Please let me know if there's anything else
I can do to make this easier to review!
Many thanks to [`ast-grep`](https://github.com/ast-grep/ast-grep),
[`helix`](https://github.com/helix-editor/helix), and good ol'
fashioned`git` magic, without which this PR would have taken the rest of
my natural life.
[^1]: And randomly also the seen variables violating `flake8-bugbear`?
These snapshot changes should *all* only be a result of changes to
trailing whitespace in the output. I checked a psuedo random sample of
these, and the whitespace found in the previous snapshots seems to be an
artifact of the rendering and _not_ of the source data. So this seems
like a strict bug fix to me.
There are other snapshots with whitespace changes, but they also have
other changes that we split out into separate commits. Basically, we're
going to do approximately one commit per category of change.
This represents, by far, the biggest chunk of changes to snapshots as a
result of the `annotate-snippets` upgrade.
Hi!
I left out some of the functions in the migration rule which became
removed in NumPy 2.0:
- `np.alltrue`
- `np.anytrue`
- `np.cumproduct`
- `np.product`
Addressing: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/26493
## Summary
This PR switches more callsites of `SemanticModel::is_builtin` to move
over to the new methods I introduced in #10919, which are more concise
and more accurate. I missed these calls in the first PR.
## Summary
I used `codespell` and `gramma` to identify mispellings and grammar
errors throughout the codebase and fixed them. I tried not to make any
controversial changes, but feel free to revert as you see fit.
## Summary
Charlie can probably explain this better than I but it turns out,
`CallPath` is used for two different things:
* To represent unqualified names like `version` where `version` can be a
local variable or imported (e.g. `from sys import version` where the
full qualified name is `sys.version`)
* To represent resolved, full qualified names
This PR splits `CallPath` into two types to make this destinction clear.
> Note: I haven't renamed all `call_path` variables to `qualified_name`
or `unqualified_name`. I can do that if that's welcomed but I first want
to get feedback on the approach and naming overall.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR changes the `CallPath` type alias to a newtype wrapper.
A newtype wrapper allows us to limit the API and to experiment with
alternative ways to implement matching on `CallPath`s.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This is a simple idea to avoid unnecessary work in the linter,
especially for rules that run on all name and/or all attribute nodes.
Imagine a rule like the NumPy deprecation check. If the user never
imported `numpy`, we should be able to skip that rule entirely --
whereas today, we do a `resolve_call_path` check on _every_ name in the
file. It turns out that there's basically a finite set of modules that
we care about, so we now track imports on those modules as explicit
flags on the semantic model. In rules that can _only_ ever trigger if
those modules were imported, we add a dedicated and extremely cheap
check to the top of the rule.
We could consider generalizing this to all modules, but I would expect
that not to be much faster than `resolve_call_path`, which is just a
hash map lookup on `TextSize` anyway.
It would also be nice to make this declarative, such that rules could
declare the modules they care about, the analyzers could call the rules
as appropriate. But, I don't think such a design should block merging
this.
These names are only ever displayed internally right now and we could be
clearer in our test snapshots.
The diff is kind of scary because all of the tests fixtures are updated.
This is the one refactor in the NumPy 2.0 upgrade rule that isn't
compatible with earlier versions of NumPy, so I'm marking it as unsafe
and adding a dedicated message.
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Hi! Currently NumPy Python API is undergoing a cleanup process that will
be delivered in NumPy 2.0 (release is planned for the end of the year).
Most changes are rather simple (renaming, removing or moving a member of
the main namespace to a new place), and they could be flagged/fixed by
an additional ruff rule for numpy (e.g. changing occurrences of
`np.float_` to `np.float64`).
Would you accept such rule?
I named it `NPY201` in the existing group, so people will receive a
heads-up for changes arriving in 2.0 before actually migrating to it.
~~This is still a draft PR.~~ I'm not an expert in rust so if any part
of code can be done better please share!
NumPy 2.0 migration guide:
https://numpy.org/devdocs/numpy_2_0_migration_guide.html
NEP 52: https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0052-python-api-cleanup.html
NumPy cleanup tracking issue:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/23999
## Test Plan
A unit test is provided that checks all rule's fix cases.
## Summary
Throughout the codebase, we have this pattern:
```rust
let mut diagnostic = ...
if checker.patch(Rule::UnusedVariable) {
// Do the fix.
}
diagnostics.push(diagnostic)
```
This was helpful when we computed fixes lazily; however, we now compute
fixes eagerly, and this is _only_ used to ensure that we don't generate
fixes for rules marked as unfixable.
We often forget to add this, and it leads to bugs in enforcing
`--unfixable`.
This PR instead removes all of these checks, moving the responsibility
of enforcing `--unfixable` up to `check_path`. This is similar to how
@zanieb handled the `--extend-unsafe` logic: we post-process the
diagnostics to remove any fixes that should be ignored.
## Summary
This PR upgrades some rules from "sometimes" to "always" fixes, now that
we're getting ready to ship support in the CLI. The focus here was on
identifying rules for which the diagnostic itself is high-confidence,
and the fix itself is too (assuming that the diagnostic is correct).
This is _unlike_ rules that _may_ be a false positive, like those that
(e.g.) assume an object is a dictionary when you call `.values()` on it.
Specifically, I upgraded:
- A bunch of rules that only apply to `.pyi` files.
- Rules that rewrite deprecated imports or aliases.
- Some other misc. rules, like: `empty-print-string`, `unused-noqa`,
`getattr-with-constant`.
Open to feedback on any of these.
After working with the previous change in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/7821 I found the names a bit
unclear and their relationship with the user-facing API muddied. Since
the applicability is exposed to the user directly in our JSON output, I
think it's important that these names align with our configuration
options. I've replaced `Manual` or `Never` with `Display` which captures
our intent for these fixes (only for display). Here, we create room for
future levels, such as `HasPlaceholders`, which wouldn't fit into the
`Always`/`Sometimes`/`Never` levels.
Unlike https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/7819, this retains the
flat enum structure which is easier to work with.
## Stack Summary
This stack splits `Settings` into `FormatterSettings` and `LinterSettings` and moves it into `ruff_workspace`. This change is necessary to add the `FormatterSettings` to `Settings` without adding `ruff_python_formatter` as a dependency to `ruff_linter` (and the linter should not contain the formatter settings).
A quick overview of our settings struct at play:
* `Options`: 1:1 representation of the options in the `pyproject.toml` or `ruff.toml`. Used for deserialization.
* `Configuration`: Resolved `Options`, potentially merged from multiple configurations (when using `extend`). The representation is very close if not identical to the `Options`.
* `Settings`: The resolved configuration that uses a data format optimized for reading. Optional fields are initialized with their default values. Initialized by `Configuration::into_settings` .
The goal of this stack is to split `Settings` into tool-specific resolved `Settings` that are independent of each other. This comes at the advantage that the individual crates don't need to know anything about the other tools. The downside is that information gets duplicated between `Settings`. Right now the duplication is minimal (`line-length`, `tab-width`) but we may need to come up with a solution if more expensive data needs sharing.
This stack focuses on `Settings`. Splitting `Configuration` into some smaller structs is something I'll follow up on later.
## PR Summary
This PR extracts the linter-specific settings into a new `LinterSettings` struct and adds it as a `linter` field to the `Settings` struct. This is in preparation for moving `Settings` from `ruff_linter` to `ruff_workspace`
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
