[numpy] Update NPY201 to include exception deprecations

[mtsokol]

Hi!

This PR updates NPY201 rule to address #12034 and partially numpy/numpy#26800.

[mtsokol]

I'm having trouble generating new snapshots. The current NPY201.py.snap snapshot works with NPY201.py file up to the line 125. With two last lines removed in NPY201.py the command cargo insta test -p ruff_linter passes.

But when I add another function that is covered by the rule (as right now in the PR):

    np.compare_chararrays

The above test command fails and doesn't generate new snap update file. How can I solve it?

I did the existing changes to the NumPy snapshot file by running the above test command and cargo insta review which worked for the first functions that I added to the .py file. Is there a snapshot file line count limit or some other constraint?

[charliermarsh]

I'll take a look. We might be hitting the limit we set on number of iterations during testing (this is just a safeguard).

[MichaReiser]

It seems that the fixes never converge

Failed to converge after 10 iterations. This likely indicates a bug in the implementation of the fix. Last diagnostics:
NPY201.py:15:5: NPY201 `np.add_newdoc_ufunc` will be removed in NumPy 2.0. `add_newdoc_ufunc` is an internal function.
   |
13 |     add_newdoc
14 | 
15 |     np.add_newdoc_ufunc
   |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NPY201
16 | 
17 |     np.asfarray([1,2,3])

[charliermarsh]

I think more likely is that it needs more than 10 iterations due to conflicts.

[MichaReiser]

It seems we're only replacing one ExprName at a time...

Probably because they all overlap because each of them tries to add the numpy import. Although it's unclear why we still try to add the numpy import when it already exists.

[charliermarsh]

They probably all touch the numpy import to ensure that it doesn't get removed by another rule.

[MichaReiser]

Yeah, the cullprint is this. Which works as intended for removals but also means that it only applies one fix at the time.

ruff/crates/ruff_linter/src/importer/mod.rs

Lines 304 to 324 in bf5b62e

	// We also add a no-op edit to force conflicts with any other fixes that might try to
	// remove the import. Consider:
	//
	// ```python
	// import sys
	//
	// quit()
	// ```
	//
	// Assume you omit this no-op edit. If you run Ruff with `unused-imports` and
	// `sys-exit-alias` over this snippet, it will generate two fixes: (1) remove the unused
	// `sys` import; and (2) replace `quit()` with `sys.exit()`, under the assumption that `sys`
	// is already imported and available.
	//
	// By adding this no-op edit, we force the `unused-imports` fix to conflict with the
	// `sys-exit-alias` fix, and thus will avoid applying both fixes in the same pass.
	let import_edit = Edit::range_replacement(
	self.locator.slice(imported_name.range()).to_string(),
	imported_name.range(),
	);

An easy workaround could be to split the test into two files

[charliermarsh]

Yeah, or bump the limit a little bit. Either is ok with me. (We probably want a smarter strategy for this in the future.)

[charliermarsh]

I'll do it and merge this.

[MichaReiser]

I'm leaning toward splitting the tests. Many iterations can make it more difficult to debug real issues.

[charliermarsh]

Too late!

[MichaReiser]

Fair enough

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #12065 will degrade performances by 5.15%

_{Comparing mtsokol:update-numpy2-rule (8726e6e) with mtsokol:update-numpy2-rule (38ca9b8)}

Summary

❌ 1 regressions
✅ 29 untouched benchmarks

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	mtsokol:update-numpy2-rule	mtsokol:update-numpy2-rule	Change
❌	linter/all-rules[unicode/pypinyin.py]	2.1 ms	2.3 ms	-5.15%

[mtsokol]

Thank you for solving it! One comment - the python file test is still missing these new entries added to the rule:

np.DTypePromotionError
np.ModuleDeprecationWarning
np.RankWarning
np.TooHardError
np.VisibleDeprecationWarning
np.chararray
np.format_parser

I didn't add them yesterday to reproduce the issue in a minimal configuration. We can still add them or leave the test as it's right now - both options are fine with me.