Review WPS305 (f-string found violation) inclusion

[Sxderp]

https://wemake-python-styleguide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/pages/usage/violations/consistency.html#wemake_python_styleguide.violations.consistency.FormattedStringViolation

The violation has been removed because "ruff covers this rule." However, I can't find a ruff rule that actually covers it. There are ruff rules that do the opposite (perfer f-string over format).

Am I missing something? Which rule should I be enabling to get similar behavior?

https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/

[sobolevn]

Yeah, sorry, the violation description is confusing. I changed the default from .format to f string, because ruff does not allow to use .format :(

I am open to suggestions on how to better document it.
If you really want this, you can port the old rule to your custom flake8 plugin and use it.

[Sxderp]

Ruff "by default" does not allow the use of .format. I think you could keep the violation in WPS and publish a doc with "known ruff incompatibilities" that lists incompatible rules and each project can decide what they want. Ruff has already set a precedent of including conflicting rules that end-users have to decide on.

Example: D203 / D211

[MehrazRumman]

can you assign me this issue ?

[sobolevn]

I don't plan on providing any choices in this project. Since we now switched to ruff - we now have to live with f-strings :(