[pydocstyle] Handle arguments with the same names as sections (D417)#16011
Merged
[pydocstyle] Handle arguments with the same names as sections (D417)#16011
pydocstyle] Handle arguments with the same names as sections (D417)#16011Conversation
Contributor
|
MichaReiser
reviewed
Feb 7, 2025
| # regression test for https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/16007. | ||
| # attributes is a section name without subsections, so it was failing the | ||
| # previous workaround for Args: args: sections | ||
| def send(payload: str, attributes: dict[str, Any]) -> None: |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you mind adding a test where one of the function arguments is named like a section header? I'm curious what happens if that argument is undocumented.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this what you had in mind? I added these two cases, both of which cause D417. The first one is right, Args is not documented, but the second is still a false positive that I can keep working on.
# undocumented argument with the same name as a section
def f(payload, Args):
"""
Send a message.
Args:
payload:
The message payload.
"""
# documented argument with the same name as a section
def f(payload, Args):
"""
Send a message.
Args:
payload:
The message payload.
Args:
The other arguments.
"""
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that's what I had in mind
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These cases should work now! I initially deleted the inner conditional here
ruff/crates/ruff_linter/src/docstrings/sections.rs
Lines 525 to 529 in 1f7a29d
which worked well for D417 but broke other rules like D214 - overindented-section. So I went for the more involved approach of passing down a
Definition and extracting known parameter names from it.
One other thing I considered is just searching for a known parameter at line 514 instead of collecting a HashSet up front.
MichaReiser
approved these changes
Feb 9, 2025
dcreager
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 11, 2025
* main: add diagnostic `Span` (couples `File` and `TextRange`) (#16101) Remove `Hash` and `Eq` from `AstNodeRef` for types not implementing `Eq` or `Hash` (#16100) Fix release build warning about unused todo type message (#16102) [`pydocstyle`] Handle arguments with the same names as sections (`D417`) (#16011) [red-knot] Reduce usage of `From<Type>` implementations when working with `Symbol`s (#16076) Transition to salsa coarse-grained tracked structs (#15763) [`pyupgrade`] Handle micro version numbers correctly (`UP036`) (#16091) [red-knot] `T | object == object` (#16088) [`ruff`] Skip singleton starred expressions for `incorrectly-parenthesized-tuple-in-subscript` (`RUF031`) (#16083) Delete left-over `verbosity.rs (#16081) [red-knot] User-level configuration (#16021) Add `user_configuration_directory` to `System` (#16020)
dhruvmanila
added
bug
dhruvmanila
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2025
## Summary This is mainly on me for not noticing this during the last release but I noticed in the last changelog that there's only 1 bug fix which didn't seem correct as I saw multiple of them so I looked at a couple of PRs that are in "Rule changes" section and the PRs that were marked with the `bug` label was categorized there because 1. It _also_ had other labels like `rule` and `fixes` (#16080, #16110, #16219, etc.) 2. Some PRs didn't have the `bug` label (but the issue as marked as `bug`) but _only_ labels like "fixes" (#16011, #16132, etc.)
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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
Fixes #16007. The logic from the last fix for this (#9427) was sufficient, it just wasn't being applied because
Attributessections aren't expected to have nested sections. I just deleted the outer conditional, which should hopefully fix this for all section types.Test Plan
New regression test, plus the existing D417 tests.