Declare ruff's vendored-file excludes once in pyproject.toml - #9090
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Advanced Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 8 included reviews per hour; 7 remain after this review. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughRuff now excludes Priority: ⬇️ Low — Defer the Ruff configuration cleanup because it is a narrow two-file tooling change with no direct product or customer impact. Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to Ruff exclusions for generated version files are centralized in project configuration while redundant test-script flags are removed. No current merge-blocking risk remains. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
a82b9a2 to
7839e1c
Compare
versioneer.py and monai/_version.py were excluded from ruff twice, independently: .pre-commit-config.yaml's ruff hook via its own "exclude:" regex, and runtests.sh via hardcoded --exclude flags on the CLI invocation. Neither read from pyproject.toml, so a third direct "ruff check" invocation (an editor, a one-off shell command) would lint and offer to rewrite both files -- 200 violations today. extend-exclude in [tool.ruff] gives runtests.sh's directory-walk invocation (and any other caller that lets ruff discover its own config) the same exclusion pre-commit's hook already applies, so the CLI flags on the runtests.sh invocation are redundant and dropped. Verified: 'ruff check' with pyproject.toml's new extend-exclude, given the directory the way runtests.sh gives it, still reports 'All checks passed!' for the tree, and 'runtests.sh --ruff' is unaffected end to end. Ruff ignores config exclude when handed explicit filenames instead of a directory (the pre-commit hook path, already governed by its own hook-level exclude, and not something this PR touches). Signed-off-by: Hans Johnson <hans-johnson@uiowa.edu>
7839e1c to
02eb3d5
Compare
2 participants
versioneer.pyandmonai/_version.pywere excluded from ruff twice, independently:.pre-commit-config.yaml's hook via its ownexclude:regex, andruntests.shvia hardcoded--excludeflags on the CLI invocation. Neither read frompyproject.toml, so a third directruff checkinvocation — an editor, a one-off shell command — would lint and offer to rewrite both files: 200 violations today.extend-excludein[tool.ruff]givesruntests.sh's directory-walk invocation the same exclusion pre-commit's hook already applies, so the CLI flags there are now redundant and dropped.Independent of #9089 (which routes the same block's
ruffcalls throughPY_EXE) — rebuilt directly offdevso the two PRs' diffs don't overlap. Whichever lands first, the other needs a small rebase over the same lines; neither depends on the other's content.Verification
ruff checkgiven the directory the wayruntests.shgives it (not explicit filenames) reportsAll checks passed!for the tree with the newextend-excludein place, andruntests.sh --ruffis unaffected end to end.--excludeflag being dropped was purely additive overextend-exclude, not required for it to take effect: a syntheticpyproject.tomlwith onlyextend-excludeset already hid the excluded file fromruff check ., before any--excludeflag was added.exclude/extend-excludewhen handed explicit filenames instead of a directory — that's the pre-commit hook's path, already governed by its own hook-levelexclude:, and this PR doesn't touch it.