Skip to content

Consider splitting get_associated_ruff_rules into two cases for managed and non-managed rules #499

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
nathanjmcdougall opened this issue Apr 6, 2025 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@nathanjmcdougall
Copy link
Owner

Motivation
Not all rules are managed, e.g. INP for import-linter. At the moment, it is tool-dependent whether the rules from get_associated_ruff_rules are managed. We should probably make this distinction explicit in the interface

Summary of desired enhancement
Introduce a new method to distinguish managed vs. non-managed ruff rules associated with a tool.

@nathanjmcdougall nathanjmcdougall added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 6, 2025
@nathanjmcdougall nathanjmcdougall self-assigned this Apr 6, 2025
@nathanjmcdougall
Copy link
Owner Author

We have our is_managed_rule method etc. so we need to be careful here. It might be we just approach this in a simpler way where we use that other method, but the general idea holds.

@nathanjmcdougall
Copy link
Owner Author

We should add INP for import-linter once this is available.

@nathanjmcdougall
Copy link
Owner Author

I don't think this is urgent enough to be in the next milestone.

@nathanjmcdougall
Copy link
Owner Author

Will resolve in a slightly different way via #563.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant