Stabilize unused-unpacked-variable (RUF059)#20233
Merged
ntBre merged 2 commits intobrent/0.13.0from Sep 4, 2025
Merged
Conversation
The tests looked good. For the docs, I added a `## See also` section pointing to the closely-related F841 (unused-variable) and the corresponding section to F841 pointing back to RUF059. It seems like you'd probably want both of these active or at least to know about the other when reading the docs.
Contributor
|
| code | total | + violation | - violation | + fix | - fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RUF059 | 980 | 980 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ANN201 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| D212 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Linter (preview)
✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.
Contributor
Author
|
I went through the ecosystem check subset linked in the PR, and these all look correct to me. There are a lot of hits, but the rule also has an autofix to add a |
dylwil3
approved these changes
Sep 4, 2025
ntBre
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2025
The tests looked good. For the docs, I added a `## See also` section pointing to the closely-related F841 (unused-variable) and the corresponding section to F841 pointing back to RUF059. It seems like you'd probably want both of these active or at least to know about the other when reading the docs.
ntBre
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 10, 2025
The tests looked good. For the docs, I added a `## See also` section pointing to the closely-related F841 (unused-variable) and the corresponding section to F841 pointing back to RUF059. It seems like you'd probably want both of these active or at least to know about the other when reading the docs.
ntBre
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 10, 2025
The tests looked good. For the docs, I added a `## See also` section pointing to the closely-related F841 (unused-variable) and the corresponding section to F841 pointing back to RUF059. It seems like you'd probably want both of these active or at least to know about the other when reading the docs.
ntBre
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 10, 2025
The tests looked good. For the docs, I added a `## See also` section pointing to the closely-related F841 (unused-variable) and the corresponding section to F841 pointing back to RUF059. It seems like you'd probably want both of these active or at least to know about the other when reading the docs.
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
2 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.
The tests looked good. For the docs, I added a
## See alsosection pointing tothe closely-related F841 (unused-variable) and the corresponding section to F841
pointing back to RUF059. It seems like you'd probably want both of these active
or at least to know about the other when reading the docs.