Bump ruff to 0.9.2

[abmantis]

Proposed change

SSIA

Additional information

Checklist

• The changes are tested and work correctly
• pre-commit checks pass / the code has been formatted using Black
• Tests have been added to verify that the new code works

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.01%. Comparing base (edf9432) to head (0072476).
Report is 5 commits behind head on dev.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##              dev    #3743   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.01%   90.01%           
=======================================
  Files         320      320           
  Lines       10411    10411           
=======================================
  Hits         9371     9371           
  Misses       1040     1040           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[TheJulianJES]

I'm not sure if we even need this in requirements_test.txt at all anymore.
We use the ruff hook for pre-commit now (.pre-commit-config.yaml), so we might be able to drop this completely from requirements_test.txt.

(There's an open PR to update the ruff hook from 0.8.3 to 0.9.2 here.)

[abmantis]

The downside of not having it on requirements_test.txt is that then it will use the system ruff during development which may be a different version than the one we have on pre-commit.

[prairiesnpr]

The downside of not having it on requirements_test.txt is that then it will use the system ruff during development which may be a different version than the one we have on pre-commit.

I'm also in favor of keeping ruff in requirements_test.txt and keeping it in sync with pre-commit.

[TheJulianJES]

The downside of not having it on requirements_test.txt is that then it will use the system ruff during development

So when using the Ruff extension for VS code for example? (I'm mainly not using VS Code, so not sure about this)

pre-commit run --all-files automatically fixes/reformats all files and uses the version from the pre-commit config (that's also what the local Git hook automatically does for the current file and what our CI does).

---

In the zigpy repo, we do not include ruff at all: https://github.com/zigpy/zigpy/blob/dev/requirements_test.txt, same with the uiprotect library for example.
In the ZHA repo, it's still included for some reason, but not pinned at a specific version. The CI/tests do not need it there anymore either, so it should be removed too IMO.

The automatic PRs from the pre-commit CI GitHub app will also only update the pre-commit config, not requirements_test.txt. That's why I'd rather drop the requirement completely, unless there's good reason otherwise, as we'll always need to manually update keep both in sync otherwise.

[abmantis]

So when using the Ruff extension for VS code for example? (I'm mainly not using VS Code, so not sure about this)

In my case with the ruff lsp on neovim, but the same should apply to vscode.

The automatic PRs from the pre-commit CI GitHub app will also only update the pre-commit config, not requirements_test.txt. That's why I'd rather drop the requirement completely, unless there's good reason otherwise, as we'll always need to manually update keep both in sync otherwise.

Could removing the installation from pre-commit and relying on requirements_test.txt for dependency setup be an option? I.e., make the CI do pip install -r requirements_test.txt and pre-commit will only run the checks (but not install anything)?

I am also fine with just removing it from requirements_test.txt, but would prefer to have it as part of the dev environment. In the past I got confused as to why my editor was formatting files (using ruff) differently from the pre-commit, before realizing they were using different versions. But again, fine with dropping it too.