Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add hidden
--preview
/--no-preview
options toruff check
#7009Add hidden
--preview
/--no-preview
options toruff check
#7009Changes from 5 commits
0e44707
a16e3f5
fecfcac
475769d
29be01a
432f09b
05810f2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This type being inside of the
ruff
crate means that we can't use it in the formatter, or any other crate (e.g. consider we need to gate some semantic model change)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm it seems wrong to put it elsewhere right now since there's a dedicated
settings/types.rs
module. This is a good callout though, we should probably have aruff_settings
crate so we can share with the formatter?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we can just move the
PreviewMode
because the type itself isn't specific to settings.A
ruff_settings
crate isn't straightforward because the settings depend on the rules. So you would need to make the formatter depend on ruff.I consider (at least most of what is in settings) settings as the linter-specific settings. The formatter has its own resolved settings that only contain the formatter settings. Most of this already exists with
PyFormatOptions
, although we probably want to add a few more settings.What I have in mind is:
Configuration
is the unified configuration from which the workspace derives the tool SettingsThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Where would you expect it to go?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't know 😅
It would need to be some rather low-level crate that other crates can depend on without pulling in too many dependencies.
The alternative is to duplicate the enum in project where it is needed. I don't really mind that (e.g. the Linter has
LineLength
and the formatter has a very similarLineWidth
option type)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alright let's consider this TBD when preview support is added to the formatter
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Another way we could take is that
PreviewMode
remains in the configuration only and setting it to true or false changes individual settings in the tool-specific settings. Each tool can then decide whether it uses feature-specific flags or a single preview flag. For example, the formatter can either:preview=true
would enable/disable all of them at once.The benefit of feature specific flags is that individual features can be moved out of preview mode (and makes it easier to find all places where the check now needs to be removed)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So.. I think we could make this
Option<PreviewMode>
too but I'm not entirely sure how to make that play nicely with theJsonSchema
. I'm also not sure if we wantpreview = enabled | disabled
orpreview = true | false
for users.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I quickly looked into this but don't see a good solution for it other than implementing
Serialize
,Deserialize
andJsonSchema
manually onPreviewMode
if we wantpreview = true | false
(preview = enabled | disabled) should work out of the box.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! I'm happy to leave it as-is then
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.