pre-commit autoupdate 2025-10-04#1976
Merged
Borda merged 3 commits intoroboflow:developfrom Jan 5, 2026
Merged
Conversation
SkalskiP
reviewed
Nov 14, 2025
Collaborator
|
Hi @cclauss 👋🏻 I have one question about this change. Why did we switch from ruff to ruff check here? |
Contributor
Author
|
As of Ruff 0.7.0:
|
Borda
previously approved these changes
Dec 29, 2025
Borda
approved these changes
Jan 5, 2026
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
This is #1928 with fixes for
ruff rule RUF059.%
pre-commit autoupdate%
ruff check --select=RUF059 --fix --unsafe-fixesType of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
How has this change been tested, please provide a testcase or example of how you tested the change?
%
pre-commit run --all-filesAlso, note that the
pre-commit.citest below passes on this PR but does not on #1928.Any specific deployment considerations
For example, documentation changes, usability, usage/costs, secrets, etc.
Docs
%
ruff rule RUF059unused-unpacked-variable (RUF059)
Derived from the Ruff-specific rules linter.
Fix is sometimes available.
What it does
Checks for the presence of unused variables in unpacked assignments.
Why is this bad?
A variable that is defined but never used can confuse readers.
If a variable is intentionally defined-but-not-used, it should be
prefixed with an underscore, or some other value that adheres to the
[
lint.dummy-variable-rgx] pattern.Example
Use instead:
See also
This rule applies only to unpacked assignments. For regular assignments, see
unused-variable.Options
lint.dummy-variable-rgx