ruff server: Implement quick fix code actions to ignore a diagnostic with # noqa:

[snowsignal]

Summary

Fixes #10594.

Note: this PR is in draft because the actual code to generate noqa comment edits has yet to be implemented. So far, the existing code just sets things up to accept these noqa comment edits.

Test Plan

Will be created after this PR gets taken out of draft.

[github-actions]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #11085 will not alter performance

_{Comparing jane/server/noqa-comments (0c40149) with main (349a4cf)}

Summary

✅ 30 untouched benchmarks

[dhruvmanila]

I think it would be useful to have two separate PRs or commits (whichever you prefer) - one which updates the add_noqa API on the linter side and the other which uses it in the server for the code action. This would be helpful in understanding the motivation behind the change and also allow us to look at them in isolation. I could even check if I can plug the new API for Jupyter Notebook :)

[MichaReiser]

Would you mind expanding your PR summary with some more detail about what the change is about and add a test plan for both ruff CLI and the vs code extenion.

[snowsignal]

I think it would be useful to have two separate PRs or commits (whichever you prefer) - one which updates the add_noqa API on the linter side and the other which uses it in the server for the code action. This would be helpful in understanding the motivation behind the change and also allow us to look at them in isolation. I could even check if I can plug the new API for Jupyter Notebook :)

Good idea, I'll split this PR into two separate PRs.