Repository navigation
Enable Ruff allow-dict-calls-with-keyword-arguments setting - #15915
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The new setting configures Ruff rule C408 (unnecessary-collection-call) to allow `dict` calls with keyword arguments (e.g. `dict(a=1, b=2)`).
Contributor
|
Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.
|
1 task
Contributor
|
I'll get this in - it allows #15664 to move forward and we can always re-evaluate. |
Contributor
|
p.s. Thanks @eerovaher! |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
allow-dict-calls-with-keyword-argumentsconfigures Ruff rule C408 to allowdictcalls with keyword arguments (e.g.dict(a=1, b=2)). Ruff will still replacedict()with{}. C408 can now be enabled in several sub-packages.This is in response to #15664 (comment)