[FrancescoPezzella]

No description provided.

[pjljvandelaar]

A design question.
Should we apply ruff for just the changes we need - to ensure minimum changes - or for some predefined set of changes?

I wonder whether all recipes will always need all (currently three) ruff options
and whether code owners will complain about changes made by ruff that are not related to our original / desired transformation.

Of course for safety and security, I think it is good that the user cannot provide arguments when ruff is called.

[FrancescoPezzella]

A design question. Should we apply ruff for just the changes we need - to ensure minimum changes - or for some predefined set of changes?

I wonder whether all recipes will always need all (currently three) ruff options and whether code owners will complain about changes made by ruff that are not related to our original / desired transformation.

Of course for safety and security, I think it is good that the user cannot provide arguments when ruff is called.

The rules I added in ruff.utils are the bare minimum from Ruff and nothing else. I think if there is a Ruff rule that we find universally useful to almost always use, then we can add it there.

One thing Renaissance.Py does not do currently, is any sort of formatting. Also I think it would be the opposite, I think "code owners" complain if the code is left with random white spaces, weird import order, etc after applying a recipe.

[pjljvandelaar]

The change is nice.

I am very curious how the different code owners respond.
From my previous experience, code owners were not happy with some of changes made by the formatter (ruff in this case) whenever a formatter was NOT normally used.