Skip to content
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

Stabilize flake8-async behavior changes #12268

Closed
5 tasks
MichaReiser opened this issue Jul 10, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #12844
Closed
5 tasks

Stabilize flake8-async behavior changes #12268

MichaReiser opened this issue Jul 10, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #12844
Assignees
Labels
breaking Breaking API change
Milestone

Comments

@MichaReiser MichaReiser added the breaking Breaking API change label Jul 10, 2024
@MichaReiser MichaReiser added this to the v0.6 milestone Jul 10, 2024
@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood changed the title Stabilize flake8-async beahvior changes Stabilize flake8-async behavior changes Jul 10, 2024
@augustelalande
Copy link
Contributor

Add ASYNC109 to this #12236

@charliermarsh
Copy link
Member

Nice. Is this done, or are there more?

@augustelalande
Copy link
Contributor

augustelalande commented Jul 12, 2024

So that last trio exclusive rule in ruff is ASYNC105, however it has also remained trio only in the reference flake8-async plugin.

ASYNC105: missing-await
async trio function called without using await. This is only supported with trio functions, but you can get similar functionality with a type-checker.

expanding the rule is dependent on multi-file type checking so I think it can just be left as is for now.

@charliermarsh
Copy link
Member

Awesome, thank you @augustelalande!

@augustelalande
Copy link
Contributor

@charliermarsh I don't think you should close this. Currently I updated the rules to match the upstream behavior, but the change is gated behind preview. I think @MichaReiser meant this issue to track the removal of gating which can be released in the 0.6 release (or 0.7 I thought?).

@charliermarsh charliermarsh reopened this Jul 12, 2024
@charliermarsh
Copy link
Member

Ah I see, ok, makes sense.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
breaking Breaking API change
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants