Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Stabilize flake8-async behavior changes #12268

Closed
5 tasks
MichaReiser opened this issue Jul 10, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #12844
Closed
5 tasks

Stabilize flake8-async behavior changes #12268

MichaReiser opened this issue Jul 10, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #12844
Assignees
Labels
breaking Breaking API change
Milestone

Comments

@MichaReiser MichaReiser added the breaking Breaking API change label Jul 10, 2024
@MichaReiser MichaReiser added this to the v0.6 milestone Jul 10, 2024
@AlexWaygood AlexWaygood changed the title Stabilize flake8-async beahvior changes Stabilize flake8-async behavior changes Jul 10, 2024
@augustelalande
Copy link
Contributor

Add ASYNC109 to this #12236

@charliermarsh
Copy link
Member

Nice. Is this done, or are there more?

@augustelalande
Copy link
Contributor

augustelalande commented Jul 12, 2024

So that last trio exclusive rule in ruff is ASYNC105, however it has also remained trio only in the reference flake8-async plugin.

ASYNC105: missing-await
async trio function called without using await. This is only supported with trio functions, but you can get similar functionality with a type-checker.

expanding the rule is dependent on multi-file type checking so I think it can just be left as is for now.

@charliermarsh
Copy link
Member

Awesome, thank you @augustelalande!

@augustelalande
Copy link
Contributor

@charliermarsh I don't think you should close this. Currently I updated the rules to match the upstream behavior, but the change is gated behind preview. I think @MichaReiser meant this issue to track the removal of gating which can be released in the 0.6 release (or 0.7 I thought?).

@charliermarsh charliermarsh reopened this Jul 12, 2024
@charliermarsh
Copy link
Member

Ah I see, ok, makes sense.

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
breaking Breaking API change
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants