fix: pytest 8.1 compat

[hairmare]

Updates the pytest_collect_file hook to conform to the new call syntax while still providing the old syntax for backwards compat with pytest < 7.0.0.

• Fixes pluggy._manager.PluginValidationError: Plugin 'ruff' for hook 'pytest_collect_file' #15
• heavily stolen from inspired by MNT: Compat with pytest>=8 astropy/pytest-filter-subpackage#15
• See also pytest 8.1.dev gives {'path'} are declared in the hookimpl but can not be found in the hookspec pytest-dev/pytest#11779
• API ref: https://docs.pytest.org/en/8.0.x/reference/reference.html#std-hook-pytest_collect_file

Further notes

The pytest api docs still mention that the deprecated path param still works but it was removed in 8.1 completely (pytest-dev/pytest#11757) and the docs will mention it being gone since 8.0.0 once the 8.1.x docs are released.

Given the new param was introduced all the way back in 7.0.0, this patch uses it starting from that version. Hopefully this will make removing this, rather kludgy, compat implementation once it isn't needed anymore easier.

[sbrandtb]

For the sake of code deduplication, why not:

def _pytest_collect_file(
        file_path: Path, parent: pytest.Collector,
) -> RuffFile:
    config = parent.config
    if not config.option.ruff:
        return

    if path.ext != ".py":
        return

    return RuffFile.from_parent(parent, **make_path_kwargs(path))


if PYTEST_VER >= (7, 0):

    def pytest_collect_file(file_path, parent):
        return _pytest_collect_file(Path(file_path), parent)

else:

    def pytest_collect_file(path, parent):
        return _pytest_collect_file(path, parent)

For clarity, I also removed unused fspath and added type hints. My main point is to deduplicate code into a function that looks like the modern version and then call it via a small wrapper for old versions. I feel like this makes it much easier to understand what is going on and what is the actual difference between those two interfaces.

[hairmare]

I gave this a try but seem to be stumbling over the make_path_kwargs function when doing so. I'll have to dig deeper later.

[iurisilvio]

I'd like to reduce duplication too, but it is difficult to make it right, these args are a bit confusing.

I added a tox test with pytest 8.1.0 pinned and it works great.

Released in 0.3.1.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 62.50000% with 6 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 86.98%. Comparing base (37b8e73) to head (107ecfe).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
pytest_ruff/__init__.py	62.50%	3 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #16      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.13%   86.98%   -2.15%     
==========================================
  Files           5        5              
  Lines         138      146       +8     
  Branches       17       20       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits          123      127       +4     
- Misses          7        9       +2     
- Partials        8       10       +2     

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

[hairmare]

it looks like the pytest 8.1.0 release was yanked: pytest-dev/pytest#12069

i'll follow up on this once there is a new release available.

[sbrandtb]

@hairmare Maybe I am misunderstanding, but the change is real and it will happen eventually. The reason why they yanked the release is because they violated their own deprecation policy and the internet was not happy about it 😅 What I am trying to say is that the pathlib based fixture already exists and we can test it with the current version, so when they release a new version that removes the deprecated string-path fixture, we are prepared.

Anyway, we are all volunteers and I am totally not trying to convince you to work for me or anything, hence I would offer help if you are short on time or motivation. What do you think? 🙂

[hairmare]

@sbrandtb consider me convinced anyway ;) the yank did downscale the urgency a bit at my end, but there's a reason i ended up agreeing with the PYTEST_VER >= (7, 0) and didn't opt for (8, 0)

thanks for approving ci btw, coverage is for sure something that i didn't look into yet and would rather improve

[bluetech]

Perhaps consider just bumping the pytest dependency to pytest>=7, then you don't need to complicate the code with compat checks. pytest 7.0.0 was released on Feb 4, 2022.