Generate JSON schema for Ruff options

[edgarrmondragon]

See #1217

[squiddy]

I think it's unfortunate if we have to repeat ourselves here. I would look into whether we can adjust the option macro to attach the doc attribute to the field (would probably be nice during development as well), or whether we can make use of the generated ConfigurationOptions struct that exposes all that information.

[edgarrmondragon]

I agree. I'll look into it

[squiddy]

We can also explore turning this around: see how far we can get with JSON schema & schemars, and perhaps we can build on that as a base for the [option] macros.

[charliermarsh]

Repeating ourselves here isn't the end of the world (it's nice to have these as rust docs too, I guess?) though agree it'd be nice to reuse if there's a straightforward path.

[edgarrmondragon]

Yeah, there's a bit of overlap between the two traits so at some point (not necessarily in this PR) a single source of truth should be in place.

[charliermarsh]

Okay, I think I have this working in the other direction?

Like we can do this:

#[option(
    default = r#"[]"#,
    value_type = "Vec<char>",
    example = r#"
        # Allow minus-sign (U+2212), greek-small-letter-rho (U+03C1), and the asterisk-operator (U+2217),
        # which could be confused for "-", "p", and "*", respectively.
        allowed-confusables = ["−", "ρ", "∗"]
    "#
)]
/// A list of allowed "confusable" Unicode characters to ignore when enforcing `RUF001`,
/// `RUF002`, and `RUF003`.
pub allowed_confusables: Option<Vec<char>>,
...

...and have it generate the schema, and the documentation, and it works in the IDE.

What do you think @squiddy?

[charliermarsh]

(It's probably possible to generate the rustdoc from the proc macro, but I'm not that strong on macros (and I don't know how that would ever work with the IDE).)

[squiddy]

Yes, looks good to me! As you said, that fit's more into standard rust and how IDEs work. I found some hints on how to generate rustdoc from the macro, but than I ran into macro errors that I couldn't resolve.. probably for the best.

(On that topic, I wonder if we can just move everything into rustdoc and have the macro parse that text up into default / value_type and example.)

[squiddy]

This is nice. I'm keeping an eye on this, because having a schema could come in handy for the wasm playground, where I currently export some custom schema to have this options sidebar. If there was a way for this schema to also have the default values in there, I could use just this. :)

[charliermarsh]

This is awesome.

[charliermarsh]

Are these missing descriptions?

[edgarrmondragon]

Yes, there are a bunch of missing descriptions. I can add them :)

[charliermarsh]

It’s ok, I think I can update the macro to read from rustdoc, and then these comments can just be taking the “doc” piece from above and moving them into comments verbatim.

[charliermarsh]

The most helpful thing, in that light, would just be to take the existing doc= text from above and copying it as // docs for each attribute. But I can also do it, either way.

[charliermarsh]

Thanks @edgarrmondragon as always!