Skip to content

[ruff] Stabilize checking for file-level directives in unused-noqa (RUF100) #18497

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 6, 2025

Conversation

dylwil3
Copy link
Collaborator

@dylwil3 dylwil3 commented Jun 6, 2025

Note that the preview behavior was not documented (shame on us!) so the documentation was not modified.

@dylwil3 dylwil3 added this to the v0.12 milestone Jun 6, 2025
@dylwil3 dylwil3 added the rule Implementing or modifying a lint rule label Jun 6, 2025
@ntBre ntBre force-pushed the brent/release-0.12.0 branch from 5f1af44 to 11966be Compare June 6, 2025 14:14
@dylwil3 dylwil3 force-pushed the dylan/stabilize-file-level-directives branch from 24158fb to 2af41e9 Compare June 6, 2025 14:28
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 6, 2025

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

ℹ️ ecosystem check detected linter changes. (+19 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes in 5 projects; 50 projects unchanged)

apache/superset (+1 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --ignore RUF9 --no-fix --output-format concise --no-preview --select ALL

+ superset/commands/importers/v1/__init__.py:70:5: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `C901`)

ibis-project/ibis (+1 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

+ ibis/backends/tests/signature/typecheck.py:8:1: RUF100 Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `D205`, `D415`, `D400`)

python/typeshed (+2 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --ignore RUF9 --no-fix --output-format concise --no-preview --select E,F,FA,I,PYI,RUF,UP,W

+ stdlib/asyncio/__init__.pyi:1:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (non-enabled: `PLR5501`)
+ stdlib/typing.pyi:2:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `F811`)

scikit-build/scikit-build-core (+7 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

+ tests/packages/importlib_editable/pkg/pmod_a.py:1:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `I001`)
+ tests/packages/importlib_editable/pkg/sub_a/pmod_b.py:1:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `I001`)
+ tests/packages/importlib_editable/pkg/sub_b/pmod_c.py:1:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `I001`)
+ tests/packages/importlib_editable/pkg/sub_b/sub_c/pmod_d.py:1:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `I001`)
+ tests/packages/importlib_editable/pkg/sub_b/sub_d/pmod_e.py:1:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `I001`)
+ tests/packages/importlib_editable/pmod.py:1:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `I001`)
+ tests/test_skbuild_settings.py:2:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (non-enabled: `PLC1901`)

astropy/astropy (+8 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

+ astropy/cosmology/_src/core.py:2:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `RUF009`)
+ astropy/cosmology/_src/flrw/base.py:2:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `RUF009`)
+ astropy/cosmology/_src/flrw/w0cdm.py:2:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `RUF009`)
+ astropy/cosmology/_src/flrw/w0wacdm.py:2:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `RUF009`)
+ astropy/cosmology/_src/flrw/w0wzcdm.py:2:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `RUF009`)
+ astropy/cosmology/_src/flrw/wpwazpcdm.py:2:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `RUF009`)
+ astropy/units/photometric.py:14:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `F821`)
+ astropy/units/tests/test_quantity_annotations.py:2:1: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `FA100`, `FA102`)

Changes by rule (1 rules affected)

code total + violation - violation + fix - fix
RUF100 19 19 0 0 0

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

@dylwil3
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dylwil3 commented Jun 6, 2025

A little confused by this one, which looks incorrect:

stdlib/typing.pyi:2:1: RUF100 [*] Unused noqa directive (unused: F811)

Will investigate...

Update: Nope, this is correct! Apparently Ruff has been clever enough to notice that overload is typing.overload here since 0.4.0.

Copy link
Contributor

@ntBre ntBre left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, one minor suggestion while we're here

ntBre and others added 4 commits June 6, 2025 16:42
Summary
--

Release branch for Ruff 0.12.0

TODOs
--

- [ ] Drop empty first commit
- [ ] Merge with rebase-merge (**don't squash merge!!!!**)
@dylwil3 dylwil3 force-pushed the dylan/stabilize-file-level-directives branch from 2af41e9 to d0c4a28 Compare June 6, 2025 21:44
@dylwil3 dylwil3 merged commit 3bd775f into brent/release-0.12.0 Jun 6, 2025
34 checks passed
@dylwil3 dylwil3 deleted the dylan/stabilize-file-level-directives branch June 6, 2025 21:51
@dylwil3 dylwil3 mentioned this pull request Jun 6, 2025
2 tasks
ntBre added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 8, 2025
…` (`RUF100`) (#18497)

Note that the preview behavior was not documented (shame on us!) so the
documentation was not modified.

---------

Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <[email protected]>
ntBre added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 8, 2025
…` (`RUF100`) (#18497)

Note that the preview behavior was not documented (shame on us!) so the
documentation was not modified.

---------

Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <[email protected]>
ntBre added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 9, 2025
…` (`RUF100`) (#18497)

Note that the preview behavior was not documented (shame on us!) so the
documentation was not modified.

---------

Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <[email protected]>
ntBre added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2025
…` (`RUF100`) (#18497)

Note that the preview behavior was not documented (shame on us!) so the
documentation was not modified.

---------

Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <[email protected]>
ntBre added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 11, 2025
…` (`RUF100`) (#18497)

Note that the preview behavior was not documented (shame on us!) so the
documentation was not modified.

---------

Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <[email protected]>
ntBre added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 17, 2025
…` (`RUF100`) (#18497)

Note that the preview behavior was not documented (shame on us!) so the
documentation was not modified.

---------

Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <[email protected]>
ntBre added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 17, 2025
…` (`RUF100`) (#18497)

Note that the preview behavior was not documented (shame on us!) so the
documentation was not modified.

---------

Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
rule Implementing or modifying a lint rule
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants