replace flake8 with ruff

[zacharyburnett]

ruff is currently in-development, aims for parity with flake8 and black, and also implements several additional rulesets and fixes such as pydocstyle, isort, and flake8-bandit. It also supports pyproject.toml in the [tool.ruff] table. We can use it without black, and port over the existing .flake8 configuration using flake8-to-ruff

ruff's supported rules: https://github.com/charliermarsh/ruff#supported-rules

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 0.00% // Head: 0.00% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (93e5995) compared to base (454314b).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #77   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage    0.00%   0.00%           
======================================
  Files          25      25           
  Lines        3060    3060           
======================================
  Misses       3060    3060           

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[zacharyburnett]

The installed dependencies would change from those required by flake8:

pipdeptree --packages flake8

flake8==6.0.0
  - mccabe [required: >=0.7.0,<0.8.0, installed: 0.7.0]
  - pycodestyle [required: >=2.10.0,<2.11.0, installed: 2.10.0]
  - pyflakes [required: >=3.0.0,<3.1.0, installed: 3.0.1]

to the ruff build:

pipdeptree --packages ruff

ruff==0.0.187

[stscieisenhamer]

Thought this morning: Can we leave the flake8 configuration? The CI can use ruff, but at least having the equivalent flake8 will not leave IDE's and other tools out.

[zacharyburnett]

Thought this morning: Can we leave the flake8 configuration? The CI can use ruff, but at least having the equivalent flake8 will not leave IDE's and other tools out.

Sure, we can