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

Use ruff check instead of ruff #392

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 29, 2024
Merged

Use ruff check instead of ruff #392

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 29, 2024

Conversation

MichaReiser
Copy link
Member

@MichaReiser MichaReiser commented Feb 29, 2024

Summary

Use ruff check instead of ruff for lining.

This change is in preparation for removing the ruff alias. astral-sh/ruff#10171

Test Plan

I verified that:

  • ruff-lsp uses ruff ... for linting before making the change
  • ruff-lsp uses ruff check ... after my change
  • that diagnostics are still shown after my change

@MichaReiser MichaReiser added the internal An internal refactor or improvement label Feb 29, 2024
@@ -154,6 +154,7 @@ class VersionModified(NamedTuple):

# Arguments provided to every Ruff invocation.
CHECK_ARGS = [
"check",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I assume this existed from v0.0.189 onward?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It does indeed

git checkout v0.0.189
cargo clean
cargo run --bin ruff -- check -h
Ruff: An extremely fast Python linter.

Usage: ruff [OPTIONS] [FILES]...

Arguments:
  [FILES]...  

@MichaReiser MichaReiser merged commit 66c94fb into main Feb 29, 2024
20 checks passed
@MichaReiser MichaReiser deleted the call-ruff-check branch February 29, 2024 15:50
@MichaReiser MichaReiser mentioned this pull request Jun 27, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
internal An internal refactor or improvement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants