Thanks for working on this! It looks like there are a few unrelated test failures in the CI results. The inline tests also produce a couple of files that have to be checked in. Let me know if you need help resolving either of those issues!

(labeling this as ty since it shouldn't cause any external behavior to change in Ruff but will be a new syntax error detected in ty)

Have updates to fix the CI, however this test is failing

thread 'valid_syntax' panicked at crates/ruff_python_parser/tests/fixtures.rs:119:9:
"/home/happy/ruff/crates/ruff_python_parser/resources/valid/expressions/arguments.py": Expected no semantic syntax errors for a valid program:
   |
29 | # Yield expression
30 | call((yield x))
31 | call((yield from x))
   |       ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Syntax Error: `yield from` statement in async function; use `async for` instead
32 |
33 | # Named expression

file https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/main/crates/ruff_python_parser/resources/valid/expressions/arguments.py

I have a couple of doubts :

first: while reviewing snapshots I found this

        241 │+1 | x: *int = 1
        242 │+2 | x: yield a = 1
        243 │+3 | x: yield from b = 1
        244 │+  |    ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Syntax Error: `yield from` statement in async function; use `async for` instead
        245 │+4 | x: y := int = 1

Here this yield from syntax error should not be there as its not in a async scope its a module level scope ?
for this I looked at the implementation of in_async_context & I am not perfectly sure how's here the in_async_context is returning true, Am I missing something here?

fn in_async_context(&self) -> bool {
        for scope_info in self.scope_stack.iter().rev() {
            let scope = &self.scopes[scope_info.file_scope_id];
            match scope.kind() {
                ScopeKind::Class | ScopeKind::Lambda => return false,
                ScopeKind::Function => {
                    return scope.node().expect_function(self.module).is_async;
                }
                ScopeKind::Comprehension
                | ScopeKind::Module
                | ScopeKind::TypeAlias
                | ScopeKind::TypeParams => {}
            }
        }
        false
    }

second: should I commit all the updated snapshots ?

Thank you

Hii @ntBre,
I’d really appreciate your help in moving this PR forward when you get a chance.
Thank you : )

I think the test failures are running into a limitation of our inline parser error test suite:

You can see there that we've hard-coded true in in_async_context. We do have some handling for scopes, as you can see in the function just above:

So I think you'll also need to add a real implementation of in_async_context to avoid the unrelated test failures. Sorry about that, I guess this is the first rule that needs it. I'm happy to help with this if you run into trouble.

Along these lines, we usually add two other kinds of tests for these errors since they depend on ruff's and ty's implementations of SemanticSyntaxContext. You can see an example in Ruff:

and in ty:

second: should I commit all the updated snapshots ?

Yes, once you get a set of snapshot failures that look correct, you'll need to commit the updated snapshots to pass the tests in CI.

@ntBre thank you for guiding this PR!

I have updated it accordingly , could you please take a look.
Thank you

I'll try to take a look soon! It looks like the representation of AST nodes changed slightly last week (#20028), you might need to rebase/merge main and update your snapshots once more to get CI passing. There's also one small clippy suggestion.

have rebased it, CI should pass now

Updated the snapshot & fixed the clippy suggestion as per new CI results.

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Formatter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no format changes.

Formatter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no format changes.

Hi maintainers, please let me know if any further input or changes are required from my end for this PR.

Thank you