[ruff] reintroduce demisto/content to ruff-ecosystem - #27305
Merged
Conversation
Issue with the use of removed rules upstream is resolved. Syntax error is still present, but apparently it doesn't break ruff-ecosystem anymore, but keeping it safe.
|
ntBre
added
testing
ntBre
approved these changes
Jul 29, 2026
ntBre
left a comment
ntBre
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice thank you! And thanks for opening the upstream PR too. Just one minor comment on that front since it looks like it already merged 🚀
ntBre
approved these changes
Jul 29, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Reintroducing
demisto/contentback toruff-ecosystem, it's a huge repo with 4.5K py file and 2.5M loc, so may have catch some cases for ecosystem report. It was previously commented out in #12129 due to the use of removedE999Issue with the use of removed rules upstream is resolved, though apparently
E999was dropped from selection a while ago and new issue with the use of removedUP038occurred, but it's resolved now too - demisto/content#45227Syntax error in still present in https://github.com/demisto/content/blob/master/Packs/ThreatQ/Integrations/ThreatQ/ThreatQ.py, so keeping
exclude. Though apparently it doesn't breakruff-ecosystemanymore, but keeping it safe for now. I've submitted a fix upstream demisto/content#45275, soexcludecan be removed later too.Test Plan
Tested running
ruff-ecosystemlocally, no issues found.