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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
red-knot:
source_text
,line_index
, andparsed_module
queries #11822red-knot:
source_text
,line_index
, andparsed_module
queries #11822Changes from all commits
1e4c031
f2dc644
5bfee90
99cbb93
99bfcf3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
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.
Does it make sense to assume a file is Python if it has no extension? Is that an existing Ruff behavior? That seems likely to lead to a lot of syntax/parsing errors. From a user perspective, I would expect to have to specially request via config if I want Ruff to treat an unknown-extension file as Python source.
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.
We'll need to filter out non-python files (according to the user's configuration) when walking the workspace so that we never end up calling parse on these files.
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.
Tests also for stub file, vendored stub file, and unknown-extension file?
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 added a test for vendored paths. I prefer to not add a test for unknown extensions and stub files because I then end up re-testing
PySourceType::from_extension
. I rather want to have integration tests for different file types (We write a lot of integration tests in ruff and only few unit tests. What we have in these PRs is already way above the average number of unit tests)