[red-knot] Detect version-related syntax errors #16379
Draft
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ntBre
changed the title
red-knot] Detect version-related syntax errors
ntBre
force-pushed
the
brent/syntax-errors-red-knot
branch
3 times, most recently
from
8014499 to
f0005f7
Compare
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #16379 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
|
ntBre
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2025
This PR is the first in a series derived from #16308, each of which add support for detecting one version-related syntax error from #6591. This one should be the largest because it also includes a couple of additional changes: 1. the `syntax_errors!` macro, which makes adding more variants a bit easier 2. the `Parser::add_unsupported_syntax_error` method Otherwise I think the general structure will be the same for each syntax error: * Detecting the error in the parser * Inline parser tests for the new error * New ruff CLI tests for the new error Because of the second point here, this PR is currently stacked on #16357. As noted above, there are new inline parser tests, as well as new ruff CLI tests. Once #16379 is resolved, there should also be new mdtests for red-knot, but this PR does not currently include those.
ntBre
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 26, 2025
This PR is the first in a series derived from #16308, each of which add support for detecting one version-related syntax error from #6591. This one should be the largest because it also includes a couple of additional changes: 1. the `syntax_errors!` macro, which makes adding more variants a bit easier 2. the `Parser::add_unsupported_syntax_error` method Otherwise I think the general structure will be the same for each syntax error: * Detecting the error in the parser * Inline parser tests for the new error * New ruff CLI tests for the new error Because of the second point here, this PR is currently stacked on #16357. As noted above, there are new inline parser tests, as well as new ruff CLI tests. Once #16379 is resolved, there should also be new mdtests for red-knot, but this PR does not currently include those.
ntBre
force-pushed
the
brent/syntax-errors-red-knot
branch
from
f0005f7 to
bc274bd
Compare
ntBre
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 26, 2025
This PR is the first in a series derived from #16308, each of which add support for detecting one version-related syntax error from #6591. This one should be the largest because it also includes a couple of additional changes: 1. the `syntax_errors!` macro, which makes adding more variants a bit easier 2. the `Parser::add_unsupported_syntax_error` method Otherwise I think the general structure will be the same for each syntax error: * Detecting the error in the parser * Inline parser tests for the new error * New ruff CLI tests for the new error Because of the second point here, this PR is currently stacked on #16357. As noted above, there are new inline parser tests, as well as new ruff CLI tests. Once #16379 is resolved, there should also be new mdtests for red-knot, but this PR does not currently include those.
ntBre
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 27, 2025
This PR is the first in a series derived from #16308, each of which add support for detecting one version-related syntax error from #6591. This one should be the largest because it also includes a couple of additional changes: 1. the `syntax_errors!` macro, which makes adding more variants a bit easier 2. the `Parser::add_unsupported_syntax_error` method Otherwise I think the general structure will be the same for each syntax error: * Detecting the error in the parser * Inline parser tests for the new error * New ruff CLI tests for the new error Because of the second point here, this PR is currently stacked on #16357. As noted above, there are new inline parser tests, as well as new ruff CLI tests. Once #16379 is resolved, there should also be new mdtests for red-knot, but this PR does not currently include those.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This is a follow-up to #16090. The main issue pointed out in #16090 (comment) is passing the Python version into
parsed_module. I need to resolve that before taking this out of draft.Depending on the sequencing of these PRs, this branch may also need to add mdtests for each syntax error detected in the parser.
Test Plan
New mdtests.