feat: add ruff --statistics

[spaceone]

Closes #1814.

[spaceone]

can you help me here? I don't want to map every rule but only the .first() one but don't know how to get the first instance. .first() gives me only errors.

[charliermarsh]

I think you want something like:

let message: Option<String> = diagnostics.messages.iter().find(|message| message.kind.rule() == rule).map(|message| message.kind.body());
if let Some(message) = message{
  writeln!(...)
}

[charliermarsh]

Note that the .map in my version and your version are slightly different. In your version, you're .map-ing over an iterator, kind of like Python's map(). In my version, it's map on an Option<String>, which basically means: if the value is None, return None; if the value is Some(String), run this function over String.

[spaceone]

i try to further refactor, so that we can generate also JSON output.

[spaceone]

@charliermarsh enhanced in 0d66a24 - what do you think?

The JSON output is:

[
  {
    "count": 3,
    "code": "E101",
    "message": "Indentation contains mixed spaces and tabs"
  },
]

would you prefer?:

{
  "E101": {                                                                                                                                                                         
      "count": 3,                                                     
      "message": "Indentation contains mixed spaces and tabs"       
   }, 
}

and the output is just appended to the regular output. would one want to combine it in case of the JSON formatter? i am unsure how to handle this. there would be two different items in the list then.

[not-my-profile]

Shouldn't these rather anyhow::bail!()?

[spaceone]

added that. can we handle that on argparsing level somehow as well?

[not-my-profile]

For a clean solution where we have a different enum we'd have to turn statistics into a subcommand ... I don't think we want to make it a top-level subcommand and a subsubcommand for the checker subcommand might be too confusing for the user.

Otherwise we can probably somehow hook into clap's conflict system but we'd still have the same enum so I don't really see the point of that ... it's better if this is defined in the printer.

[spaceone]

the subcommand thing has been developed in the last days, right?
so the regular ruff command should be ruff check in the future?
i consider the additional output of statistics still as a option then.
ruff statistics or ruff check statistics doesn't fit for my feeling.

[not-my-profile]

Yes I agree since it makes sense to combine --statistics with most of the other options of the (implicit) check command it does make sense to keep it as an option :)

[not-my-profile]

It probably makes sense to mention which formats are supported in the error message.

[spaceone]

done

[spaceone]

@charliermarsh some off topic questions:

• ruff is released once a day (if there were changes)? this is done automatically?
• who are the maintainers - only you or is there a team already?

[not-my-profile]

We don't have an auto-release setup. Ruff releases only happen when Charlie decides to make a release, see also #2288 (comment). Afaik Charlie is the only maintainer but he has been working on ruff full-time.

[charliermarsh]

@spaceone - That's right -- I cut a release about once a day, but it's done manually by me. (Mostly just consists of bumping the version via commit, creating a release in GitHub, and ensuring that the GitHub Action does its job.)

I'm working on Ruff full-time. But we have a lot of contributors who are doing heavy lifting :)

[charliermarsh]

This looks good, and I'll merge it as-is. But am I crazy to think that with --statistics, we should just show the statistics, and not the individual error codes? I know Flake8 shows both, but I was surprised by it, and it makes it much harder to pipe into other Unix tools (e.g., to sort the table).

[charliermarsh]

(That would also resolve your question about the two JSON items.)

[spaceone]

OK: I adjusted the branch to shows statistics only and not the individual errors.

[JonathanPlasse]

Will you update the Readme to mention the use of this option?

[charliermarsh]

@JonathanPlasse - Yeah we should probably change the --help in the README to use run check --help instead. Would that resolve it?

[JonathanPlasse]

I think so yes.