You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is probably a bit of a stretch to ask, but running ruff check --select=ANN201 --statistics for example will show something like
25445 ANN201 Missing return type annotation for public function `THING`
Which obviously does not actually apply to all 25445 instances of the ANN201 violations.
So I propose some generic analogue to Violation::message but for the basic violation. In this case, Missing return type annotation for public function.
Of course, this suggestion applies to all violations with formatted strings.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This sounds reasonable, although adding one more field to all violations is a rather involved change (and having it on Message also has a performance cost). I wonder if we should just show the rule name instead with a link or change the titles of our rules to never include dynamic parts?
This is probably a bit of a stretch to ask, but running
ruff check --select=ANN201 --statistics
for example will show something likeWhich obviously does not actually apply to all 25445 instances of the ANN201 violations.
So I propose some generic analogue to
Violation::message
but for the basic violation. In this case,Missing return type annotation for public function
.Of course, this suggestion applies to all violations with formatted strings.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: