[flake8-pyi]: Stabilize: Provide more automated fixes for duplicate-union-members (PYI016)
#15342
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…e-union-members` (PYI016)
MichaReiser
added
rule
MichaReiser
changed the title
flake8-pyi]: Stabilize: Provide more automated fixes for duplicate-union-members (PYI016)flake8-pyi]: Stabilize: Provide more automated fixes for duplicate-union-members (PYI016)
MichaReiser
commented
Jan 8, 2025
| // Generate a [`Fix`] for a single type expression, e.g. `int`. | ||
| Some(Fix::applicable_edit( | ||
| Edit::range_replacement(checker.generator().expr(edit_expr), expr.range()), | ||
| // Mark [`Fix`] as unsafe when comments are in range. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems like #14270 incorrectly removed the fix for non-preview 🤷 So, technically, this PR makes the rule fixable again
|
| code | total | + violation | - violation | + fix | - fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PYI016 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 |
Linter (preview)
✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.
AlexWaygood
reviewed
Jan 8, 2025
| @@ -111,3 +111,8 @@ def func2() -> str | str: # PYI016: Duplicate union member `str` | |||
|
|
|||
| # Test case for mixed union type | |||
| field34: typing.Union[list[int], str] | typing.Union[bytes, list[int]] # Error | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| field35: "int | str" | int # Error, but currently not detected | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I'd want to extend the rule to detect this, since:
- It seems like an unlikely edge case
- It will fail at runtime with
TypeErrorunless you havefrom __future__ import annotationsat the top of the file (and if you do, there's no need to quote any annotations anyway) - In a stub file it won't fail, but you shouldn't ever use quoted annotations in a stub file anyway, and we have PYI020 to tell you off about that if you do
So I don't think it would be worth the added complexity
AlexWaygood
approved these changes
Jan 8, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All LGTM other than https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15342/files#r1906988995.
Thanks so much @sbrugman for this improvement. Changes like this make me really happy. It's still so cool that Ruff can provide sophisticated autofixes like this 😃
MichaReiser
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 8, 2025
…e-union-members` (`PYI016`) (#15342)
MichaReiser
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 9, 2025
…e-union-members` (`PYI016`) (#15342)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Summary
Stabilizes the fix extension introduced in #14270
Test Plan
There are no open issues related to
PYI016fixes. The most recent issue was fixed on Nov 25. There are also no open issues with the rule itself.I reviewed the ecosystem changes and they look good.