[ruff 0.8] [flake8-annotations] Remove deprecated rules ANN101 and ANN102

[AlexWaygood]

Summary

Remove deprecated rules ANN101 and ANN102. These have been deprecated since Ruff 0.2, released in February. There are no open issues on the tracker asking us to undeprecate them.

Test Plan

• cargo test
• git grep ANN101, git grep ANN102, git grep MissingTypeCls and git grep MissingTypeSelf all show no results
• Wait to see how impactful the ecosystem report shows this to be

[github-actions]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

[AlexWaygood]

All the errors in the ecosystem check are due to people having already explicitly ignored the rule in their pyproject.toml files. I think that validates removing the rule.

[AlexWaygood]

I feel like my main concern with merging this now is it will make the ecosystem report less useful for other PRs targeting the ruff-0.8 branch, since, once this is merged, Ruff just can't parse the configuration file at all for repos that explicitly list these rules in tool.ruff.lint.ignore. If we want to land this, I think I'd prefer to merge it after all other changes have made it into the ruff-0.8 branch.

[MichaReiser]

Landing that PR late in the 0.8 release process might not be enough because it means that we go blind on ecosystem checks after the 0.8 release until all ecosystem projects have updated their configurations (which may take a while).

I think we have to change the ecosystem script to remove individual rules.

[AlexWaygood]

Landing that PR late in the 0.8 release process might not be enough because it means that we go blind on ecosystem checks after the 0.8 release until all ecosystem projects have updated their configurations (which may take a while).

Right. I added a step to the 0.8 plan which is "file PRs with other projects helping them to update to 0.8" after we've actually cut the release. But maybe even that won't be sufficient.

[MichaReiser]

Right. I added a step to the 0.8 plan which is "file PRs with other projects helping them to update to 0.8" after we've actually cut the release. But maybe even that won't be sufficient.

I haven't checked but I worry that many projects aren't even using Ruff 0.7 at this point. That means they might have to upgrade from an arbitrary old Ruff version to 0.8, and upgrading might just not be a priority for them.

[AlexWaygood]

Okay, so for the various affected projects:

• setuptools:
  • Broken by [ruff 0.8] Remove deprecated rule UP027 #14382
  • Currently pins ruff to >=0.7.1:
    • https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/blob/540001561bc2c6766940ba5fd6247735c1a3a290/pyproject.toml#L118
    • https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/blob/540001561bc2c6766940ba5fd6247735c1a3a290/.pre-commit-config.yaml#L3
• latch:
  • Broken by this PR
  • Currently pins ruff to >=0.7.0: https://github.com/latchbio/latch/blob/2c739ac73730d9e6de8b075e8c2c9bae26eca5c2/pyproject.toml#L90
• scikit-build-core:
  • Broken by this PR and [ruff 0.8] [flake8-pytest-style] Remove deprecated rules PT004 and PT005 #14385
  • Currently pins ruff to 0.7.2: https://github.com/scikit-build/scikit-build-core/blob/acc69a86cd1995b8baff4e631e453906226801dd/.pre-commit-config.yaml#L28
• zulip:
  • Broken by this PR
  • Currently pins ruff to 0.7.1: https://github.com/zulip/zulip/blob/5d1de4c037fabda6622353b422af6b145d3d40de/requirements/dev.txt#L2910
• trio:
  • Broken by this PR
  • Currently pins ruff to 0.7.3: https://github.com/python-trio/trio/blob/785dc59309ca4f491562b817836092f54b7da4b1/test-requirements.txt#L116
• airflow
  • Broken by [ruff 0.8] [flake8-pytest-style] Remove deprecated rules PT004 and PT005 #14385
  • Currently pins ruff to 0.7.3: https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/c807762ec65db6bd699c1eb638dd79d173717df2/.pre-commit-config.yaml#L363
• pandas:
  • Broken by [ruff 0.8] [flake8-pytest-style] Remove deprecated rules PT004 and PT005 #14385
  • Currently pins ruff to 0.7.3: https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/blob/7fe270c8e7656c0c187260677b3b16a17a1281dc/.pre-commit-config.yaml#L22
• cibuildwheel:
  • Broken by [ruff 0.8] [flake8-pytest-style] Remove deprecated rules PT004 and PT005 #14385
  • Currently pins ruff to 0.7.3: https://github.com/pypa/cibuildwheel/blob/df6f8863900b4519a8dfee992548b11b4329d12b/.pre-commit-config.yaml#L17
• pip
  • Broken by [ruff 0.8] [flake8-pytest-style] Remove deprecated rules PT004 and PT005 #14385
  • Currently pins ruff to 0.5.6: https://github.com/pypa/pip/blob/fe0925b3c00bf8956a0d33408df692ac364217d4/.pre-commit-config.yaml#L25
• indico
  • Broken by [ruff 0.8] [flake8-pytest-style] Remove deprecated rules PT004 and PT005 #14385
  • Currently pins ruff to 0.7.2: https://github.com/indico/indico/blob/e63bce8b88b4a3bcfc8397d83fceadd32b81712c/requirements.dev.txt#L166

So nearly all of those look like they should be fairly easy upgrades, and it looks like they try hard to keep their ruff pin up to date. The only exception is perhaps the pip one. But the sheer quantity of affected projects means that we should probably adopt some interim solution anyway to avoid the ecosystem check breaking for all PRs.

[Avasam]

I commented the same thing in #14383 (comment), but I think it's even more relevant here.

Making "unknown rule ignored" a warning instead of a parsing error may help keep the ecosystem checks relevant when removing a rule. This is already a feature request there: #13505

[MichaReiser]

Making "unknown rule ignored" a warning instead of a parsing error may help keep the ecosystem checks relevant when removing a rule. This is already a feature request there: #13505

That's a good point. I worry that the change is a bit more work. It would require an error resilient RuleSelector for deserialization.