Fix panic on RUF027 #9990
Merged
Fix panic on RUF027 #9990
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
bd7edd0 to
dee73f6
Compare
Contributor
|
| code | total | + violation | - violation | + fix | - fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RUF027 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MichaReiser
reviewed
Feb 14, 2024
crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/ruff/rules/missing_fstring_syntax.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
dhruvmanila
approved these changes
Feb 15, 2024
crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/ruff/rules/missing_fstring_syntax.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/ruff/rules/missing_fstring_syntax.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
MichaReiser
approved these changes
Feb 15, 2024
crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/ruff/rules/missing_fstring_syntax.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
nkxxll
pushed a commit
to nkxxll/ruff
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 10, 2024
## Summary Fixes astral-sh#9895 The cause for this panic came from an offset error in the code. When analyzing a hypothetical f-string, we attempt to re-parse it as an f-string, and use the AST data to determine, among other things, whether the format specifiers are correct. To determine the 'correctness' of a format specifier, we actually have to re-parse the format specifier, and this is where the issue lies. To get the source text for the specifier, we were taking a slice from the original file source text... even though the AST data for the specifier belongs to the standalone parsed f-string expression, meaning that the ranges are going to be way off. In a file with Unicode, this can cause panics if the slice is inside a char boundary. To fix this, we now slice from the temporary source we created earlier to parse the literal as an f-string. ## Test Plan The RUF027 snapshot test was amended to include a string with format specifiers which we _should_ be calling out. This is to ensure we do slice format specifiers from the source text correctly.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Fixes #9895
The cause for this panic came from an offset error in the code. When analyzing a hypothetical f-string, we attempt to re-parse it as an f-string, and use the AST data to determine, among other things, whether the format specifiers are correct. To determine the 'correctness' of a format specifier, we actually have to re-parse the format specifier, and this is where the issue lies. To get the source text for the specifier, we were taking a slice from the original file source text... even though the AST data for the specifier belongs to the standalone parsed f-string expression, meaning that the ranges are going to be way off. In a file with Unicode, this can cause panics if the slice is inside a char boundary.
To fix this, we now slice from the temporary source we created earlier to parse the literal as an f-string.
Test Plan
The RUF027 snapshot test was amended to include a string with format specifiers which we should be calling out. This is to ensure we do slice format specifiers from the source text correctly.