0.7.3 introduces false positives for invalid # noqa directives with RUF100

[BryceBeagle]

I'm working on upgrading our codebase to use ruff=0.7.3, but there are some RUF100 changes that start flagging
some comments as being "Unused noqa directive"s.

I'm not sure if this is intentional (perhaps there's a sanctioned way of adding a comment we're not using?), but this feels like a regression to me.

This doesn't happen in 0.7.2.
I'm assuming this is related to #12809

Examples:

--- blah.py
+++ blah.py
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@
                     if res is not None:
                         res.release()

-                if 200 <= res.status < 300:  # noqa: PLR2004 Use raise_for_status
+                if 200 <= res.status < 300:  # noqa: PLR2004 raise_for_status
                     return
                 if (
                     res.status not in self._retry_status_codes

Would fix 1 error.

--- foobar.py
+++ foobar.py
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@

     @inject
     def download(self) -> Any:
-        temp_file = tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile(suffix=".tar.gz", delete=False)  # noqa: SIM115 Closing right below
+        temp_file = tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile(suffix=".tar.gz", delete=False)  # noqa: SIM115 right below
         temp_file.close()

         key = f"{self.base_commit}.tar.gz"

Would fix 1 error.

--- fake_name.py
+++ fake_name.py
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
         applied_manifests
     )

-    manifest_yaml_file = tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile(  # noqa: SIM115 We're closing the file below
+    manifest_yaml_file = tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile(  # noqa: SIM115're closing the file below
         prefix="manifest_yaml_", delete=False
     )
     manifest_yaml_file.close()

blah.py:121:46: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unknown: `Use`)
foobar.py:46:82: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unknown: `Closing`)
fake_name:50:56: RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unknown: `We`)     

[charliermarsh]

Yeah definitely, sorry about that.

[charliermarsh]

(You can probably work around it for now by adding a # in between, like: # noqa: SIM115 # We're closing the file below or # noqa: SIM115 - We're closing the file below).

[BryceBeagle]

Is adding a # recommended in general? Happy to update our pragmas to align with a recommended standard, if there is one

[charliermarsh]

I tend to do it because it disambiguates the content from the pragma (and it's easier for us to parse without any ambiguity). It's also nice if you have multiple pragmas on the same line, like # noqa # type: ignore or something. But I don't know that it's an "official" recommendation :)

[BryceBeagle]

Thanks so much for the rapid fix! You're awesome 🎉