Skip to content

Conversation

InSyncWithFoo
Copy link
Contributor

@InSyncWithFoo InSyncWithFoo commented Feb 28, 2025

Summary

Resolves #16435.

The changes are summarized by the following table:

Property Has rule? Before After
check_name Yes - A123
description Yes A123: Some explanation Some explanation
check_name No - syntax-error
description No SyntaxError: Some explanation Some explanation

Test Plan

cargo nextest run and cargo insta test.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 28, 2025

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

@InSyncWithFoo
Copy link
Contributor Author

InSyncWithFoo commented Feb 28, 2025

I don't use GitLab, so this is pretty much guesswork. The description of check_name says it should be "[a] unique name representing the check, or rule, associated with this violation". Is the rule code enough, or should it be more similar to that of --output-format=github (Ruff (A123))?

@MichaReiser
Copy link
Member

@MichaReiser MichaReiser added the cli Related to the command-line interface label Feb 28, 2025
Copy link
Member

@MichaReiser MichaReiser left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, this is great

@MichaReiser MichaReiser enabled auto-merge (squash) February 28, 2025 14:25
@MichaReiser MichaReiser merged commit 980faff into astral-sh:main Feb 28, 2025
20 checks passed
@InSyncWithFoo InSyncWithFoo deleted the um branch February 28, 2025 14:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cli Related to the command-line interface
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ruff check --output-format=gitlab is missing required property "check_name"
2 participants