chore: check ruff C4 by henryiii · Pull Request #962 · pypa/packaging

henryiii · 2025-11-11T22:19:15Z

Comprehensions.

notatallshaw · 2025-11-11T23:56:48Z

I don't really agree with this one, at least when it comes with dictionaries, when you're passing dictionaries to be used as arguments I much prefer the dict(foo=bar) syntax over the {"foo": bar} syntax.

Not only does it read closer to the keyword parameters your passing it forces the keword names to be valid.

henryiii · 2025-11-12T01:31:30Z

For general use, I strongly prefer the literal over a dict call; literals are native syntax, about 30% faster, and support arbitrary keys; they are the only candidate for the "one obvious way to do it". However, I see the .evaluate usage, which IMO is pretty much a toss up, as the one place the dict(**kwargs) shortcut is rather nice is for keyword arguments. Though, to be fair, it's still less powerful:

>>> def f(**kwargs):
...     print(kwargs)
...
>>> f(**{"class": 1})
{'class': 1}
>>> f(**{"1": 1})
{'1': 1}

That is, Python itself doesn't enforce valid keyword names. :)

IMO, since there are just two cases of this, with just one argument:

- assert Marker('"2.7.9" < "foo"').evaluate(dict(foo="2.7.10"))
+ assert Marker('"2.7.9" < "foo"').evaluate({"foo": "2.7.10"})

I think adding the check with the changes is fine, but I'd also be fine to skip those two, or even disable the check on the tests folder (but still apply the from_dict one, as that's clearly better).

notatallshaw · 2025-11-12T03:00:22Z

For general use, I strongly prefer the literal over a dict call; literals are native syntax, about 30% faster, and support arbitrary keys;

Ah, I should have made clear, I agree in general that literal syntax is preferable. But I don't agree in all cases, and to me all three examples here are more readable as dict calls.

they are the only candidate for the "one obvious way to do it".

I believe the actual text in the Zen is intended to be ironic, the em-dashes are inconsistently spaced.

And the rule here, C408, has a specific options just for this case: allow-dict-calls-with-keyword-arguments, so it seems I'm not the only one who feels this way.

henryiii · 2025-11-12T03:38:26Z

New version, ignoring this rule in tests, but still applying it to the one clear dict case. Is that better? (I can't apply a rule like disabling it for dict on only tests/, AFAIK.)

notatallshaw · 2025-11-13T22:20:43Z

I would strongly prefer setting allowing dict calls with keyword arguments as opposed to excluding C408 arbitrarily on tests, and leave the correct syntax up to authors and reviewers, i.e.

[tool.ruff.lint.flake8-comprehensions]
allow-dict-calls-with-keyword-arguments = true

Also, to a much lesser extent, I don't prefer the transformation of the dict. But I am not going to block this PR over my personal preference.

Signed-off-by: Henry Schreiner <[email protected]>

henryiii · 2025-11-14T03:01:28Z

I'm happy to go with that if you feel strongly enough. I don't think the core library (for something like packaging) should have any dict(kw)'s, but fine to disable it. Tests don't matter, but I can't change a setting per directory.

henryiii force-pushed the henryiii/chore/ruff-C4 branch from 8607681 to 54cff86 Compare November 12, 2025 03:37

henryiii force-pushed the henryiii/chore/ruff-C4 branch from 54cff86 to e5a48c5 Compare November 12, 2025 18:39

notatallshaw approved these changes Nov 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

henryiii and others added 3 commits November 13, 2025 21:40

chore: check ruff C4

1b8e9e8

chore: allow C408 in tests

6b9cff0

Signed-off-by: Henry Schreiner <[email protected]>

refactor: just skip dict() -> {}

c2d22f4

Signed-off-by: Henry Schreiner <[email protected]>

henryiii force-pushed the henryiii/chore/ruff-C4 branch from fd3824f to c2d22f4 Compare November 14, 2025 02:43

henryiii merged commit 013f3b0 into pypa:main Nov 14, 2025
3 checks passed

henryiii deleted the henryiii/chore/ruff-C4 branch November 14, 2025 03:01

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

chore: check ruff C4#962

chore: check ruff C4#962
henryiii merged 3 commits intopypa:mainfrom
henryiii:henryiii/chore/ruff-C4

henryiii commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

notatallshaw commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

henryiii commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

notatallshaw commented Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

henryiii commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

notatallshaw commented Nov 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

henryiii commented Nov 14, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

henryiii commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

notatallshaw commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

henryiii commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

notatallshaw commented Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

henryiii commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

notatallshaw commented Nov 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

henryiii commented Nov 14, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

henryiii commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

henryiii commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

notatallshaw commented Nov 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading