Treat all RUF10x noqa codes as used

[amyreese]

These codes are generated while processing noqa, so will never be seen
as "used" by this logic. Just go ahead and treat them as used and trust
that they're there for a reason.

Issue #23191, fixes #21877

[astral-sh-bot]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

[ntBre]

I'm not sure that we want to blanket mark these as used. Since #23191 mostly boils down to external being the better solution than a string of noqa comments, I wonder if we should just add a sub-diagnostic to RUF100 and maybe RUF102 suggesting to use it? I guess it would make more sense on RUF102 actually. The option is listed in the docs for both rules but without any description, so it might help to document its use a bit more clearly too.

[ntBre]

Should we close this and #23236 (and #23191) after #23268, or do we need both? I can't remember what we discussed before 😄 I think I'm pretty happy with pointing people toward the external configuration option, but I'm certainly open to other improvements.

[amyreese]

yeah, I think with the docs we can just close this and the ones you linked. We should also update RUF100 to drop the overlap with RUF102 (or at least if RUF102 is enabled)

[ntBre]

Makes sense to me! Do you want to open a follow-up issue for that? I also think we should expand RUF102 to handle file-level comments so we can drop the warning and close #23267 (comment).