[ruff] Fix some configuration warnings, activate flake8-pie, flake8-pyi, and pydocstyle

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

Type of Changes

	Type
✓	🐛 Bug fix
✓	🔨 Refactoring

Description

While working on another MR, I realized that there was a warning only seen when ruff fail for another reason.

Took the opportunity to add some useful ruff checks and fix the existing issues. It feels like pydocstringformatter is outclassed by the rust pydocstyle included in ruff, we could stop maintaining it and remove the pre-commit hook what do you think @DanielNoord ?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.81%. Comparing base (3c8be8e) to head (fc669f7).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #9593   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.81%   95.81%           
=======================================
  Files         173      173           
  Lines       18825    18825           
=======================================
  Hits        18038    18038           
  Misses        787      787           

Files	Coverage Δ
pylint/checkers/base/comparison_checker.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
pylint/checkers/base/name_checker/checker.py	98.62% <ø> (ø)
pylint/checkers/base_checker.py	95.04% <100.00%> (ø)
pylint/checkers/classes/class_checker.py	93.38% <ø> (ø)
pylint/checkers/deprecated.py	99.05% <ø> (ø)
pylint/checkers/design_analysis.py	98.88% <ø> (ø)
pylint/checkers/imports.py	94.45% <ø> (ø)
pylint/checkers/non_ascii_names.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...int/checkers/refactoring/recommendation_checker.py	96.53% <ø> (ø)
pylint/checkers/refactoring/refactoring_checker.py	98.26% <ø> (ø)
... and 13 more

[github-actions]

🤖 According to the primer, this change has no effect on the checked open source code. 🤖🎉

This comment was generated for commit fc669f7

[mbyrnepr2]

Ironic update to use raw docstring in the MyRawChecker class 😄

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

Did you know it was twice voted "most likely place to see dangerous raw characters in the doc" ?

[mbyrnepr2]

No :) what is that (doc)?

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

Just joking 😄 The doc would be the docstring in the raw checker where you explain about raw string and why you need them sometime.

[DanielNoord]

I think I'd like to keep pydocstringformatter around, but if you think we should remove it from pylint go ahead of course!

From my personal perspective development on ruff has slowed down and some very important features are not being worked on (see astral-sh/ruff#3711). As long as the tool works and has minimal maintainers impact I think it serves a purpose.

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

Interesting that the message control from pylint is quoted as an exemple, thanks for linking this issue. Even ruff have long lived issue, troubling 😄Astral have 4/5 paid devs full time on ruff, it's probably because they chose to work on other things like uv that this issue is stuck. (Well so not 4/5 devs full time on ruff specifically). And also message control like in pylint is not easy to do.

I don't want to remove pydocstringformatter, but it seems to me the place to contribute big things is now in ruff/pydocstyle because of the hype and base speed, so wanted your opinion. (They have some autofix bugs so pydocstringformatter is better in some aspect, but also it already autofix things that pydocstringformatter did not catch).

[DanielNoord]

Fully agreed!

I have been thinking about rewriting pydocstringformatter in rust as a side project but never got round to it.
But indeed: probably don't make any changes to pydocstringformatter but also not remove it (for now).