[ruff] Detect redirected-noqa in file-level comments (RUF101)
#14635
Conversation
|
crates/ruff_linter/src/noqa.rs
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| impl<'a> ParsedFileExemption<'a> { | ||
| /// Return a [`ParsedFileExemption`] for a given comment line. | ||
| fn try_extract(line: &'a str) -> Result<Option<Self>, ParseError> { | ||
| fn try_extract(line: &'a str, offset: TextSize) -> Result<Option<Self>, ParseError> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: The current signature is ambigious in the sense that it's unclear whether offset is an offset relative to line (that's what I would assume) or if it's an absolute index into the source text.
I suggest changingt the signature to try_extract(comment_range: TextRange, source: &'a str) to make this clear (we commonly use source to refer to the entire source text).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah that makes sense. I was just trying to copy the signature of Directive::try_extract, but this makes more sense here.
crates/ruff_linter/src/noqa.rs
Outdated
| let init_line_len = line.len(); | ||
| let line = Self::lex_whitespace(line); | ||
| let Some(line) = Self::lex_char(line, '#') else { | ||
| return Ok(None); | ||
| }; | ||
| let comment_start = init_line_len - line.len() - '#'.len_utf8(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: I suggest using TextLen methods here to avoid the conversion further down
| let init_line_len = line.len(); | |
| let line = Self::lex_whitespace(line); | |
| let Some(line) = Self::lex_char(line, '#') else { | |
| return Ok(None); | |
| }; | |
| let comment_start = init_line_len - line.len() - '#'.len_utf8(); | |
| let init_line_len = line.text_len(); | |
| let line = Self::lex_whitespace(line); | |
| let Some(line) = Self::lex_char(line, '#') else { | |
| return Ok(None); | |
| }; | |
| let comment_start = init_line_len - line.text_len() - '#'.text_len(); |
crates/ruff_linter/src/noqa.rs
Outdated
| let codes_end = init_line_len - line.len(); | ||
| codes.push(Code { | ||
| code, | ||
| range: TextRange::at(TextSize::try_from(codes_end).unwrap(), code.text_len()) | ||
| .add(offset), | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| let codes_end = init_line_len - line.len(); | |
| codes.push(Code { | |
| code, | |
| range: TextRange::at(TextSize::try_from(codes_end).unwrap(), code.text_len()) | |
| .add(offset), | |
| }); | |
| let codes_end = init_line_len - line.text_len(); | |
| codes.push(Code { | |
| code, | |
| range: TextRange::at(codes_end, code.text_len()).add(offset), | |
| }); |
crates/ruff_linter/src/noqa.rs
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| impl<'a> ParsedFileExemption<'a> { | ||
| /// Return a [`ParsedFileExemption`] for a given comment line. | ||
| fn try_extract(line: &'a str) -> Result<Option<Self>, ParseError> { | ||
| let line = Self::lex_whitespace(line); | ||
| fn try_extract(comment_range: TextSize, source: &'a str) -> Result<Option<Self>, ParseError> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry that I haven't been clear about what signature I'd expect. I think this signature still has the same "flaw" in that it's unclear if comment_range is an offset relative to source or the entire source text of the file.
To avoid this, I suggest changing the signature to try_extract(comment_range: TextRange, source; &'a str) and then call it like this: ParsedFileExemption::try_extract(range, locator.contents()); It's then the try_extract's responsible to slice the comment text out of the source text.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh sorry about that. I missed that you suggested TextRange instead of TextSize 🤦 This makes much more sense to me now.
|
Perfect. Let me know when it's ready to merge and I hit the button |
|
Awesome, thanks for the reviews! I just noticed that the snapshot metadata is not correct anymore after the signature change (the Otherwise ready to merge! |
Ideally yes. You can also try to update |
|
I think the newest version of insta might be the problem (mitsuhiko/insta#676; adding |
Oh interesting: I thought I updated all snapshots to use the new format but quiet possible that I missed some. |
I think some of them have been changed back (and some new ones with the old format have been added) because not all contributors have the latest version of |
Summary
Fixes #14531, where ruff was not reporting diagnostics on file-level
# ruff: noqacomments with redirected rule codes.The main change here is making
ParsedFileExemptioncloser in structure toDirective, with a sequence ofCodeswithTextRanges instead of just&strfor diagnostic reporting.Test Plan
The changes were tested against the example code from #14531 to make sure the diagnostic is now emitted.