Conversation
|
No, we should fail there but currently don't |
|
This might cause issues with |
@konstin, by "fail", do you specifically mean that we should be exiting with a non-zero exit code? And perhaps continuing to have nothing dumped to |
yes |
zanieb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@konstin this seems very simple, my only thought is maybe we should have a different message that's in a different format so it's obviously distinct e.g. "No errors found" (I don't love exact message that since it sounds like an error)
@charliermarsh any ideas?
I'd also like to say how many files we scanned e.g. "Found 0 errors in 125 files" would be helpful to know it actually scanned something. We can track that separately.
|
Slight preference for something like "All checks passed" over something that contains the word error, otherwise i'm on board. |
|
I like "All checks passed" although it's a little outside our normal terminology |
# Conflicts: # crates/ruff_cli/tests/integration_test.rs
|
|
I'm not sure what to say here. A configuration option for this seems excessive and it is significantly friendlier for Ruff to indicate that it did something. If you want to open an issue requesting a configuration option, we can consider it. I'd want to see significant community feedback that this is important first though. |
|
Sorry, I figured out that |
|
Oh great! :) |
https://github.com/aspect-build/rules_lint/blob/main/docs/lint_test.md is one such tool. It is used by Bazel users to assert "no warnings were produced by the tool". So this change broke our tests. From what I can tell, ruff is the only linter we integrate that prints on success.
Here's some other linter decisions on this:
So I think rather than add an option, ruff should go back to the old silent-on-success behavior. |
|
@alexeagle would you mind creating a new issue for this to avoid having discussions on merged PRs. Thank you I wonder if it would be sufficient to test if Ruff's in an interactive terminal and only then print the message. |
|
@MichaReiser thanks for the quick reply, since the issue requesting this change is still open, I've just commented there: #8553 (comment) |
|
Thanks for moving the discussion! |


Summary
Adds a successful check message after no errors were found
Implements #8553
Test Plan
Ran a check on a test file with
cargo run -p ruff_cli -- check test.py --no-cacheand outputted as expected.Ran the same check with
cargo run -p ruff_cli -- check test.py --no-cache --silentand the command was gone as expected.