How do I disable ruff for a specific line?

[atherfawaz]

I was wondering if there is a way to disable lint check/fix for one line of code. We have similar options in pylint.

For example, I would like to do something like:

# ruff: disable=F401
from abc.xyz import function_name

Apologies if this has been answered previously; I couldn't find it in the Discussions.

[charliermarsh]

The most common would be to add a noqa inline, like so:

from abc.xyz import function_name  # noqa: F401

If you want to ignore all errors on a line:

from abc.xyz import function_name  # noqa

You can also disable all errors of a given kind across an entire file like so:

# ruff: noqa: F401

from abc.xyz import function_name

(More details in the docs.)

[matu3ba]

# ruff: noqa: E501

regressed or is not working for file-global specific errors. [as of ruff 0.0.243]

I do use ruff --quiet --ignore E501 - as workaround.

[charliermarsh]

I just checked and this is working correctly for me on main via ruff check foo.py --isolated -n:

# ruff: noqa: E501

x = "ajksdasjkld;hasdoiasd ajksdasjkld;hasdoiasd ajksdasjkld;hasdoiasd ajksdasjkld;hasdoiasd ajksdasjkld;hasdoiasd ajksdasjkld;hasdoiasd"

Can you share a reproducible test case, and/or try again on main?

[matu3ba]

Oh, I see whats wrong now. My bad. My ruff version is way too old on my work pc. On my home pc it shows:

ruff --version
ruff 0.0.269

[LumenYoung]

Oh, I see whats wrong now. My bad. My ruff version is way too old on my work pc. On my home pc it shows:

ruff --version
ruff 0.0.269

Hi, I'm also experiencing this. I'm installing the ruff from mason. but I don't think this version is too old right? Because it is the latest release on the ruff github page. How did you get this resolved?

[fraunhofersociety]

I suggested to support rule-names instead of rule-codes, too:
#15315

[bersbersbers]

The difference between # ruff: noqa: XXX and noqa: XXX is really subtle. While you would think that the difference is that the former applies to only one tool while the latter applies to more, the difference actually is the scope (file vs line). That is not extremely intuitive ;)

[charliermarsh]

I agree. This is something we borrowed from Flake8, which has the same system. We'll likely redo suppression comments entirely at some point.

[rkshthrmsh]

Hi @charliermarsh, is there a way to disable ruff for a block of lines? # noqa and # ruff: noqa work for a single line and an entire file, respectively. Would this require commenting # noqa on all lines in the block?

[charliermarsh]

Ah yeah, there isn’t right now. We’ll likely support it in the future, but the syntax is TBD. So you’re right: you either need to disable for the file, or comment on every line. (I’d suggest the former.)

[k4lizen]

@charliermarsh just checking in, still no way to do this?

[MichaReiser]

See #3711

[bwagner]

I only want to import typer if I'm running a module as a script:

if __name__ == "__main__":
    import typer  # noqa: E402

However, running this through ruff still outputs the error:
script.py:26:1: E402 Module level import not at top of file

python v3.11.4
macOS 13.4.1
ruff 0.0.282

[charliermarsh]

Are you able to post a complete file for reproduction? (The error says line 26.)

[zanieb]

(We should probably not apply that rule in if __name__ == "__main__": blocks)

[bwagner]

Here is a reduced script that triggers the ruff E402 error. Note the comments "delete this". Delete those lines individually and adapt main to circumvent syntax errors: Each deletion on its own weirdly make the E402 error disappear. import sys # delete this and adapt main -> ruff error E402 disappears "Delete this comment and the ruff error E402 disappears." from pathlib import Path # delete this and adapt main -> ruff error E402 disappears if __name__ == "__main__": import os # noqa: E402 def main(): print(Path(sys.argv[0])) print(os.name) main()

…

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 10:11 PM Charlie Marsh ***@***.***> wrote: Are you able to post a complete file for reproduction? (The error says line 26.) — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3442 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADNESO2EGUHF3G3BSUYICTXTQAVTANCNFSM6AAAAAAVWSCZWY> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[T4mmi]

Hi, sorry to dig it up, but is there any way to properly skip a single line for ANY syntax error ? my problem is that I use ruff for a cookiecutter template wich comes with a pytest case importing the package :

import {{cookiecutter.project_slug}} as pkg # noqa ???

this will trigger a

invalid-syntax: Expected a statement
 --> {{ cookiecutter.project_name }}\tests\test_package.py:1:38

that I cannot remove ...
I tried to add this to the ruff.toml but had no luck with it

exclude = ["** cookiecutter.project_name **/tests/test_package.py"]

[T4mmi]

thanks for the reply ... but this approach isn't working either :(

[MichaReiser]

Can you share your exclude pattern and the exact paths you want to exclude. You may also want to run ruff with ruff check -v to see why it excludes (or doesn't) certain files

[T4mmi]

i have something like that:

|- ruff.toml (1)
|- {{ cookiecutter.project_name }}
.  |- ruff.toml (2)
.  |- tests
.  .  |- test_package.py
.  |- src
.  .  |- {{ cookiecutter.project_name }}
.  .  .  |- __init__.py

with ruff.toml (1):

[lint]
exclude = [
    "** cookiecutter.project_name **/tests/test_package.py",
    "** cookiecutter.project_name **/src/** cookiecutter.project_slug **/__init__.py",
]

[T4mmi]

ok the pb is that the second ruff.toml (2) will take precedence over the (1) ! running ruff --config ruff.toml fixes the issue (see #9585 (comment))

[MichaReiser]

Yeah, you want to either exclude the entire directory (in which case ruff doesn't traverse into it) or explicitly set the configuration