E111 not being reported?

[MarcoGorelli]

Hi,

I may be misunderstanding something, but from the README

By default, Ruff enables all E and F error codes, which correspond to those built-in to Flake8.

I thought that all E* codes from flake8 would show up with ruff too. But here I see E111 being skipped:

Example:

(.venv) marcogorelli@DESKTOP-U8OKFP3:~/tmp$ cat t.py
if 2 + 5:
  pass
(.venv) marcogorelli@DESKTOP-U8OKFP3:~/tmp$ flake8 t.py
t.py:2:3: E111 indentation is not a multiple of 4
(.venv) marcogorelli@DESKTOP-U8OKFP3:~/tmp$ ruff t.py

Diagnostics:

(.venv) marcogorelli@DESKTOP-U8OKFP3:~/tmp$ ruff --version
ruff 0.0.205
(.venv) marcogorelli@DESKTOP-U8OKFP3:~/tmp$ flake8 --version
6.0.0 (mccabe: 0.7.0, pycodestyle: 2.10.0, pyflakes: 3.0.1) CPython 3.8.16 on Linux
(.venv) marcogorelli@DESKTOP-U8OKFP3:~/tmp$ python --version
Python 3.8.16

Likewise for E226

[squiddy]

Hey,

that refers to all error codes as currently implemented by ruff. E111 is not one of them. One is able to replace flake8 with ruff under conditions mentioned here.

Ruff can be used as a drop-in replacement for Flake8 when used (1) without or with a small number of plugins, (2) alongside Black, and (3) on Python 3 code.

None of error codes < E400 from pycodestyle have been implemented so far. A more recent comment from Charlie on that matter:

We prioritized the rules based on the assumption that Ruff would be used alongside Black -- so we just haven't focused on implementing rules like E302 that are made obsolete by an autoformatter. (It doesn't mean we won't implement them, just that they weren't / haven't been prioritized.) That's one of the key assumptions baked into any "parity with Flake8" claims. I hope it doesn't come across as misleading, it's all documented in the FAQ, definitely not my intent.

Originally posted by @charliermarsh in #1073 (comment)

That said, eventually becoming an autoformatter is in scope of this project.

[MarcoGorelli]

hey, that's clear, thanks!