[pylint] Demote PLW1510 fix to display-only#22318
Merged
Conversation
Summary -- Closes #17091. `PLW1510` checks for `subprocess.run` calls without a `check` keyword argument and previously had a safe fix to add `check=False`. That's the default value, so technically it preserved the code's behavior, but as discussed in #17091 and #17087, Ruff can't actually know what the author intended. I don't think it hurts to keep this as a display-only fix instead of removing it entirely, but it definitely shouldn't be safe at the very least. Test Plan -- Existing tests
ntBre
commented
Dec 31, 2025
Comment on lines
+56
to
+58
| // The fix is always set on the diagnostic, but display-only fixes aren't | ||
| // considered "fixable" in the tests. | ||
| const FIX_AVAILABILITY: FixAvailability = FixAvailability::Sometimes; |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This felt worth a comment here, but I think this is pretty reasonable in general. These fixes aren't usually shown to users. We could of course update the test code instead:
ruff/crates/ruff_linter/src/test.rs
Lines 354 to 359 in 8cd04df
|
| code | total | + violation | - violation | + fix | - fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLW1510 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 46 |
Linter (preview)
ℹ️ ecosystem check detected linter changes. (+0 -0 violations, +0 -46 fixes in 3 projects; 52 projects unchanged)
apache/superset (+0 -0 violations, +0 -12 fixes)
ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --no-fix --output-format concise --preview --select ALL
- RELEASING/verify_release.py:31:14: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + RELEASING/verify_release.py:31:14: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - RELEASING/verify_release.py:62:14: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + RELEASING/verify_release.py:62:14: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - superset-extensions-cli/src/superset_extensions_cli/cli.py:108:15: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + superset-extensions-cli/src/superset_extensions_cli/cli.py:108:15: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - superset-extensions-cli/src/superset_extensions_cli/cli.py:174:12: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + superset-extensions-cli/src/superset_extensions_cli/cli.py:174:12: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - superset-extensions-cli/src/superset_extensions_cli/cli.py:58:18: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + superset-extensions-cli/src/superset_extensions_cli/cli.py:58:18: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - tests/unit_tests/fixtures/bash_mock.py:25:18: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + tests/unit_tests/fixtures/bash_mock.py:25:18: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument
bokeh/bokeh (+0 -0 violations, +0 -30 fixes)
ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --no-fix --output-format concise --preview --select ALL
- release/system.py:43:18: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + release/system.py:43:18: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - scripts/hooks/install.py:5:5: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + scripts/hooks/install.py:5:5: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - scripts/hooks/protect_branches.py:10:22: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + scripts/hooks/protect_branches.py:10:22: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - scripts/hooks/uninstall.py:5:5: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + scripts/hooks/uninstall.py:5:5: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - setup.py:52:16: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + setup.py:52:16: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - tests/codebase/test_eslint.py:37:12: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + tests/codebase/test_eslint.py:37:12: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - tests/codebase/test_isort.py:58:12: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + tests/codebase/test_isort.py:58:12: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - tests/codebase/test_js_license_set.py:50:12: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + tests/codebase/test_js_license_set.py:50:12: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - tests/codebase/test_license.py:40:12: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + tests/codebase/test_license.py:40:12: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - tests/codebase/test_no_client_server_common.py:48:12: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + tests/codebase/test_no_client_server_common.py:48:12: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - tests/codebase/test_no_client_server_common.py:57:12: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + tests/codebase/test_no_client_server_common.py:57:12: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - tests/codebase/test_no_tornado_common.py:55:12: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + tests/codebase/test_no_tornado_common.py:55:12: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - tests/codebase/test_ruff.py:33:12: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + tests/codebase/test_ruff.py:33:12: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - tests/codebase/test_vermin.py:39:12: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + tests/codebase/test_vermin.py:39:12: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - tests/support/util/project.py:46:12: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + tests/support/util/project.py:46:12: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument
latchbio/latch (+0 -0 violations, +0 -4 fixes)
ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --no-fix --output-format concise --preview
- src/latch_cli/centromere/ctx.py:337:43: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + src/latch_cli/centromere/ctx.py:337:43: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument - src/latch_cli/centromere/ctx.py:342:43: PLW1510 [*] `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument + src/latch_cli/centromere/ctx.py:342:43: PLW1510 `subprocess.run` without explicit `check` argument
Changes by rule (1 rules affected)
| code | total | + violation | - violation | + fix | - fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLW1510 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 46 |
MichaReiser
approved these changes
Jan 5, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Closes #17091.
PLW1510checks forsubprocess.runcalls without acheckkeyword argument and previously had a safe fix to add
check=False. That's thedefault value, so technically it preserved the code's behavior, but as discussed
in #17091 and #17087, Ruff can't actually know what the author intended.
I don't think it hurts to keep this as a display-only fix instead of removing it
entirely, but it definitely shouldn't be safe at the very least.
Test Plan
Existing tests