fixable groups

[ghost]

How about supporting different groups of fixables in the configuration file?
So you can e.g. add a group for safe fixes that you always want to be fixed automatically like e.g. sorting imports.
And another group for fixes you only want applied automatically when you are focusing on improving code quality.

CLI could look something like this, e.g. for a group called "safe" defined in the config:
ruff check --fix safe .

[evanrittenhouse]

I can start looking into this - work's a bit busy, so if it's urgent I may ask to be unassigned.

As far as the .toml changes required, I'm thinking something like this.

# ...
[fixable_groups]
safe = ["T001", "T002", "T003"]
code_quality = ["T001", "T004", "T006", "invalid_rule]
# ...

Groups shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Usage could be something like:

ruff check --fix code_quality .

If a rule is invalid, like in the case of code_quality, we should simply print a warning for that rule and perform autofixes on the valid rules in the group.

Let me know if that sounds like a decent design - if so, I can get started on implementation.

E: We could also do --fix-group instead of --fix - I'm trying to get a handle on the CLI implementation, but tough so far. If --fix-group would be easier than overriding --fix, would be happy to do it that way instead.

[Avasam]

This could probably be achieved through different config files and extend if extend supported an array. (though you could just call ruff multiple times instead of having an "all" config).

base.ruff.toml

# ...

safe.ruff.toml

extend = "./base.ruff.toml"
extend-select = ["T001", "T002", "T003"]

code_quality.ruff.toml

extend = "./base.ruff.toml"
extend-select = ["T001", "T004", "T006"]

pyproject.toml (all)

[tool.ruff]
extend = ["./safe.ruff.toml", "./code_quality.ruff.toml"]

---

ruff check --config ./safe.ruff.toml
ruff check --config ./code_quality.ruff.toml
ruff check (defaults to pyproject.toml)

[ghost]

Hi everyone,

thanks for pointing out a way to do this right now, Avasam!
In the long run I'd prefer the solution suggested by evanrittenhouse, as it is a lot easier to understand und requires fewer files.
Thank you for considering to implement this!

[evanrittenhouse]

Cool. I'll get to work on implementing this

[charliermarsh]

@evanrittenhouse - Before we start on implementation, I think we should make sure that we're aligned on design -- I want to make sure you don't sink time into something only for us to run into disagreements on core API and such later on :)

In the proposal here, is the idea such that users are responsible for defining those fix groups? I had historically thought of fixable levels as core metadata on the rule itself, e.g., you could have rules that are considered very safe to fix, rules that are experimental, rules that are risky and so may change semantics. If that were the case, users wouldn't be required to define fix groups. Instead, we could just define them in Ruff, and then users could specify an autofix safety level when running with --fix. Do you think that would be too inflexible?

(I also want to \cc @MichaReiser who's been thinking about configuration broadly and may well disagree with what I've written here :))

[evanrittenhouse]

In my opinion, I like the idea of user-defined groups somewhere down the line. Safety levels would certainly be a helpful piece of information for rules, and I think it's quite valuable to add, but I wonder if that alone could shoehorn users into checks they don't want/need. They'd also allow us to only compare rules on one dimension (safe, unsafe, etc.), though we could probably get around that by implementing something like rule "traits" instead (handles imports, handles trailing commas, etc.).

For example, you could gather all rules around imports and run them together, or @xyxz-web's suggestion around "code quality" rules which could vary on a per-user basis.

Very open to more discussion on the design though! I haven't been around as long as some other folks so I definitely could be missing some stuff.

[ghost]

Personally I'd prefer to have the flexibility to define my own groups, though having a way to figure out which fixes are considered safe would also be very helpful.