[flake8-quotes] Fix Autofix Error (Q000, Q002)

[robincaloudis]

Summary

In issue #6785 it is reported that a docstring in the form of ''"assert" ' SAM macro definitions ''' is autocorrected to """assert" ' SAM macro definitions ''' (note the triple quotes one only one side), which breaks the python program due undetermined string lateral.

• Q002: Not only would docstrings in the form of ''"assert" ' SAM macro definitions ''' (single quotes) be autofixed wrongly, but also e.g. ""'assert' ' SAM macro definitions ''' (double quotes). The bug is present for docstrings in all scopes (e.g. module docstrings, class docstrings, function docstrings)

• Q000: The autofix error is not only present for Q002 (docstrings), but also for inline strings (Q000). Therefore s = ''"assert" ' SAM macro definitions ''' will also be wrongly autofixed.

Note that situation in which the first string is non-empty can be fixed, e.g. '123'"assert" ' SAM macro definitions ''' -> "123""assert" ' SAM macro definitions ''' is valid.

What

• Change FixAvailability of Q000 Q002 to Sometimes
• Changed both rules such that docstrings/inline strings that cannot be fixed are still reported as bad quotes via diagnostics, but no fix is provided

Test Plan

• For Q000: Add docstrings in different scopes that (partially) would have been autofixed wrongly
• For Q002: Add inline strings that (partially) would have been autofixed wrongly

Closes #6785

[github-actions]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

ℹ️ ecosystem check detected linter changes. (+1 -37 violations, +0 -0 fixes in 1 projects; 42 projects unchanged)

pandas-dev/pandas (+1 -37 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --ignore RUF9 --output-format concise --preview

- pandas/io/stata.py:1085:9: PLR0917 Too many positional arguments (11/5)
- pandas/io/stata.py:1236:40: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
- pandas/io/stata.py:1395:40: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
- pandas/io/stata.py:1615:9: PLR0914 Too many local variables (20/15)
- pandas/io/stata.py:1615:9: PLR0917 Too many positional arguments (8/5)
- pandas/io/stata.py:1720:29: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
- pandas/io/stata.py:1742:29: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
- pandas/io/stata.py:1745:31: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
- pandas/io/stata.py:1791:33: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
- pandas/io/stata.py:2058:30: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
- pandas/io/stata.py:2060:32: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
... 18 additional changes omitted for rule PLR6201
- pandas/io/stata.py:2281:9: PLR0917 Too many positional arguments (10/5)
- pandas/io/stata.py:2426:9: PLR6301 Method `_validate_variable_name` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/io/stata.py:2448:17: PLR0916 Too many Boolean expressions (7 > 5)
- pandas/io/stata.py:2866:9: PLR6301 Method `_convert_strls` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/io/stata.py:3244:9: PLR0917 Too many positional arguments (11/5)
- pandas/io/stata.py:3637:9: PLR0917 Too many positional arguments (12/5)
- pandas/io/stata.py:3681:9: PLR6301 Method `_validate_variable_name` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/io/stata.py:3704:17: PLR0916 Too many Boolean expressions (10 > 5)
- pandas/io/stata.py:787:7: PLW1641 Object does not implement `__hash__` method
+ pandas/io/stata.py:864:16: E999 SyntaxError: Unexpected token Newline

Changes by rule (7 rules affected)

code	total	+ violation	- violation	+ fix	- fix
PLR6201	25	0	25	0	0
PLR0917	5	0	5	0	0
PLR6301	3	0	3	0	0
PLR0916	2	0	2	0	0
E999	1	1	0	0	0
PLR0914	1	0	1	0	0
PLW1641	1	0	1	0	0

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #10199 will not alter performance

_{Comparing robincaloudis:rc-fix-q000-and-q002 (f4da30c) with main (fd26b29)}

Summary

✅ 30 untouched benchmarks

[robincaloudis]

@charliermarsh, do you mind to review this fix? Thanks!

[charliermarsh]

This looks good, thanks! Appreciate all the additional tests. Sorry it took me so long to get to it.