Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
|
Hey @Apakottur We can include this in the exclusions for the rule #6307 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Consider the following code:
Running Ruff with
Correctly yields:
In almost all cases I do want Ruff to error on positional boolean values, but for this specific function I don't, because it only expects one argument, which is a boolean and it's very clear what's intended.
Is there a way to add the function
is_to some kind of an allow-list for this check, so that I don't have to add anoqaevery time we use it?Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions