chore: modernize Ruff config #148
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Henry Schreiner <henryfs@princeton.edu>
| @@ -39,7 +35,8 @@ repos: | |||
| rev: v0.1.3 | |||
| hooks: | |||
| - id: ruff | |||
| args: [--fix, --exit-non-zero-on-fix, --unsafe-fixes] | |||
| args: [--fix, --exit-non-zero-on-fix, --unsafe-fixes, --show-fixes] | |||
| - id: ruff-format | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't the format be before the lint?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The formatter is guaranteed to not add new violations (if not, it's a bug and can be reported), while the linter is not guaranteed to not mess up the format. This is the official recommendation for now, eventually there might be a more elegant solution.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But if I run the linter, and the format; wouldn't it mean my linter reports will get reported with bad lines?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That’s why there will be a better solution in the future. I assume it likely will have to be a way to run both at once. (But that’s a guess)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
pyproject.toml
Outdated
| [tool.ruff.lint] | ||
| select = ["ALL"] | ||
| isort.required-imports = ["from __future__ import annotations"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I strongly prefer to inline things rather than define new tables.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wasn't sure, per-file-ignores is a separate table already.
Signed-off-by: Henry Schreiner <henryfs@princeton.edu>
Modernizing the Ruff config a bit. More things are in a .lint namespace now.