Add the ability to use the full path for exclude folder/file

[mirecl]

Description

AS-IS:

vulture . --exclude=scripts,app.py  # run command

Currently, there’s no way to specify concrete path in exclude section, this is due to Vulture will always add * to both start and end of the string:

vulture/vulture/core.py

Lines 263 to 266 in e2e84d0

	def prepare_pattern(pattern):
	if not any(char in pattern for char in "*?["):
	pattern = f"*{pattern}*"
	return pattern

TO-BE:

vulture . --exclude=./scripts,./app.py  # run command

Now, prefixing exclude value with ./ will resolve to full specific path:

['path/to/project/scripts/*', '/path/to/project/app.py']

Checklist:

• I have updated the documentation in the README.md file or my changes don't require an update.
• I have added an entry in CHANGELOG.md.
• I have added or adapted tests to cover my changes.
• I have run tox -e fix-style to format my code and checked the result with tox -e style.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #310 (068185c) into main (e2e84d0) will decrease coverage by 0.59%.
The diff coverage is 33.33%.

📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #310      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.94%   98.36%   -0.59%     
==========================================
  Files          21       21              
  Lines         665      671       +6     
==========================================
+ Hits          658      660       +2     
- Misses          7       11       +4     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
vulture/core.py	97.40% <33.33%> (-1.13%)	⬇️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[mirecl]

@jendrikseipp, what do you think? will it be useful for the project?

[jendrikseipp]

Thanks for the PR! It'll take me a while until I can review it properly. Two quick notes:

• When working on the ignore mechanism, we don't want to break backwards compatibility.
• Ideally, the ignore mechanism would be similar to other popular tools such as black and flake8.

If you can rework the PR in these directions, that'll help getting it merged. If you already check both of these, all the better :-)

[mirecl]

@jendrikseipp, since this is a new feature - backwards compatibility should remain in full for option exclude files.

Option exclude files with ./ must not conflict with flake8 and black. But the current option exclude files approach definitely contradict flake8 and black:

vulture/vulture/core.py

Lines 263 to 266 in e2e84d0

	def prepare_pattern(pattern):
	if not any(char in pattern for char in "*?["):
	pattern = f"*{pattern}*"
	return pattern

[mirecl]

@jendrikseipp, pls tell us how the progress on this PR is going:)

[mirecl]

@jendrikseipp, what is the status of PR?

[jendrikseipp]

Thanks for your work on this! Please also add a short changelog entry.

[jendrikseipp]

Sort imports alphabetically. And use import os.path instead of import os.

[jendrikseipp]

This test will succeed even without the exclude. I suggest to use vulture vulture/lines.py --exclude vulture/lines.py instead. And have two tests: returncode == 0 with exclude, returncode != 0 without exclude.

[jendrikseipp]

@mirecl Are you still planning to work on this?