chore: introduce the Ruff pre-commit hook to replace a bunch of other code formatters and linter hooks

[jenstroeger]

Summary

This change replaces black, bandit, isort, flake8, and pyupgrade git hooks with a single ruff hook.

Description of changes

Ruff is supposed to be a drop-in replacement for the aforementioned checkers, linters, and code formatters and it mostly works. However, it also

• reformatted a few lines of code;
• complained about a few issues here and there;
• complained about FooBarException which should be named FooBarError which could be considered a breaking change;
• required renaming bandit comments nosec Bxxx to noqa: Sxxx.

In addition to the rules covering the existing Macaron setup, Ruff provides a bunch of new rules and checkers (e.g. boolean trap) that are probably interesting to add… 🤓

Related issues

n/a

Checklist

• I have reviewed the contribution guide.
• My PR title and commits follow the Conventional Commits convention.
• My commits include the "Signed-off-by" line.
• I have signed my commits following the instructions provided by GitHub. Note that we run GitHub's commit verification tool to check the commit signatures. A green verified label should appear next to all of your commits on GitHub.
• I have updated the relevant documentation, if applicable.
• I have tested my changes and verified they work as expected.

[jenstroeger]

@behnazh-w in addition to the existing checks, perhaps it would make sense to add the following:

• FBT (check for boolean trap) : 178 errors
• DTZ (ban the usage of unsafe naive datetime class): 19 errors
• ICN (how certain packages should be imported or aliased): ok bdda354
• PIE (assortment of various checks, partially overlaps with others like Bugbear or pylint): 2 errors e384b24
• SIM (various tips about simplifying code): 88 errors 7fbed0a
• SLOT (ensure __slots__ for subclasses of immutables like str): ok bdda354
• TID (additional tidying up of imports): 15 errors
• PERF (see also perflint, a plugin we removed due to inactivity): 15 errors
• DOC and D (check and enforce docstring comments): 0 and 1635 errors 2ecfb3f
• PL (this is pylint but also consider Implement Pylint astral-sh/ruff#970): 293 errors
• FURB (similar to pyupgrade): 31 errors 9e3d859
• RUF (these are additional checks implemented by Ruff): 144 errors 3c84e50

Now I wouldn’t refer to these as “errors” but some are nice improvements or cleanup.

Also, note that there’s a CPY (copyright) rule which might replace this:

macaron/.pre-commit-config.yaml

Lines 203 to 211 in 109edd2

	# Checks the copyright header for .js, .py, and .java, etc. files.
	- repo: local
	hooks:
	- id: copyright-checker
	name: Copyright checker
	entry: scripts/dev_scripts/copyright-checker.sh
	language: system
	always_run: true
	pass_filenames: false

[jenstroeger]

@behnazh-w while we’re at it, I think addressing both DTZ and SIM would make sense because both contribute useful checks as well.

[behnazh-w]

@behnazh-w while we’re at it, I think addressing both DTZ and SIM would make sense because both contribute useful checks as well.

I agree that they are useful. But I prefer to merge this PR soon and add more changes in follow up PRs. What do you think?

[behnazh-w]

@jenstroeger The PR looks good to me. Are you planning to add more changes? Otherwise, could you please mark it as ready for review?

[jenstroeger]

But I prefer to merge this PR soon and add more changes in follow up PRs. What do you think?

I’m easy, happy to add the changes here or in a separate PR.

Are you planning to add more changes? Otherwise, could you please mark it as ready for review?

I could add the above two checkers in this PR, but it sounds like you’d prefer to avoid that.

[behnazh-w]

But I prefer to merge this PR soon and add more changes in follow up PRs. What do you think?

I’m easy, happy to add the changes here or in a separate PR.

Are you planning to add more changes? Otherwise, could you please mark it as ready for review?

I could add the above two checkers in this PR, but it sounds like you’d prefer to avoid that.

OK, if that's something you've already been working on, let's add them to this PR. Thank you!

[jenstroeger]

@behnazh-w I think I’ll skip on the DTZ checker because the use of both naive and aware datetimes in the code base is a bit much without me understanding all of the intentions.

PR is open for review.