Add test for redirected prefix

# Conflicts:
#	crates/ruff_linter/src/rule_redirects.rs

crates/ruff/tests/integration_test.rs

@@ -1180,6 +1180,23 @@ fn redirect_indirect() {
     "###);
 }
 
+#[test]
+fn redirect_prefix() {
+    // Selection using a redirected prefix should switch to all rules in the
+    // new prefix
+    let mut cmd = RuffCheck::default().args(["--select", "RUF96"]).build();
+    assert_cmd_snapshot!(cmd, @r###"
+    success: false
+    exit_code: 1
+    ----- stdout -----
+    -:1:1: RUF950 Hey this is a test rule that was redirected from another.
+    Found 1 error.
+
+    ----- stderr -----
+    warning: `RUF96` has been remapped to `RUF95`.
+    "###);
+}
+
 #[test]
 fn deprecated_direct() {
     // Selection of a deprecated rule without preview enabled should still work

crates/ruff_linter/src/codes.rs

@@ -963,6 +963,8 @@ pub fn code_to_rule(linter: Linter, code: &str) -> Option<(RuleGroup, Rule)> {
         (Ruff, "940") => (RuleGroup::Removed, rules::ruff::rules::RedirectedFromTestRule),
         #[cfg(feature = "test-rules")]
         (Ruff, "950") => (RuleGroup::Stable, rules::ruff::rules::RedirectedToTestRule),
+        #[cfg(feature = "test-rules")]
+        (Ruff, "960") => (RuleGroup::Removed, rules::ruff::rules::RedirectedFromPrefixTestRule),
 
 
         // flake8-django

crates/ruff_linter/src/linter.rs

@@ -252,6 +252,9 @@ pub fn check_path(
                 Rule::RedirectedFromTestRule => {
                     test_rules::RedirectedFromTestRule::diagnostic(locator, indexer)
                 }
+                Rule::RedirectedFromPrefixTestRule => {
+                    test_rules::RedirectedFromPrefixTestRule::diagnostic(locator, indexer)
+                }
                 _ => unreachable!("All test rules must have an implementation"),
             };
             if let Some(diagnostic) = diagnostic {

crates/ruff_linter/src/rule_redirects.rs

@@ -100,7 +100,11 @@ static REDIRECTS: Lazy<HashMap<&'static str, &'static str>> = Lazy::new(|| {
         ("T004", "FIX004"),
         ("RUF011", "B035"),
         ("TCH006", "TCH010"),
+        // Test redirect by exact code
         #[cfg(feature = "test-rules")]
         ("RUF940", "RUF950"),
+        // Test redirect by prefix
+        #[cfg(feature = "test-rules")]
+        ("RUF96", "RUF95"),
     ])
 });

crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/ruff/rules/test_rules.rs

@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ pub(crate) const TEST_RULES: &[Rule] = &[
     Rule::AnotherRemovedTestRule,
     Rule::RedirectedFromTestRule,
     Rule::RedirectedToTestRule,
+    Rule::RedirectedFromPrefixTestRule,
 ];
 
 pub(crate) trait TestRule {
@@ -512,3 +513,39 @@ impl TestRule for RedirectedToTestRule {
         ))
     }
 }
+
+/// ## What it does
+/// Fake rule for testing.
+///
+/// ## Why is this bad?
+/// Tests must pass!
+///
+/// ## Example
+/// ```python
+/// foo
+/// ```
+///
+/// Use instead:
+/// ```python
+/// bar
+/// ```
+#[violation]
+pub struct RedirectedFromPrefixTestRule;
+
+impl Violation for RedirectedFromPrefixTestRule {
+    const FIX_AVAILABILITY: FixAvailability = FixAvailability::None;
+
+    #[derive_message_formats]
+    fn message(&self) -> String {
+        format!("Hey this is a test rule that was redirected to another by prefix.")
+    }
+}
+
+impl TestRule for RedirectedFromPrefixTestRule {
+    fn diagnostic(_locator: &Locator, _indexer: &Indexer) -> Option<Diagnostic> {
+        Some(Diagnostic::new(
+            RedirectedFromPrefixTestRule,
+            ruff_text_size::TextRange::default(),
+        ))
+    }
+}