Mikko Leppänen

> Thanks for contributing! > > It looks like the ecosystem checks are showing some false positives e.g. https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/48bfb1a970f5b47ba1b385ad809b8324923ddf3e/tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_dataflow.py#L1956 — could you look into those? Thanks! Good catch.

Hey! If this is still open and something that requires improvement, I would be interested to a take look. Hopefully, I could contribute more in the future.

Kiitokset kommenteista! Ehdottamasti keyboard shortcutit on selkeä puute. Tämä tullaan korjaamaan ensi tilassa. Hyvä ehdotus tuo automaattinen linttaus!

👍 That hard line break causes that panic situation. Haven't had time to dig deeper into what causes this. black formatted is not able to parse the file. However ruff...

Update: The problem is, as indicated in the backtrace: > panicked at crates/ruff_python_trivia/src/textwrap.rs:155:22: attempt to subtract with overflow that we try to unsafe subtraction, and therefore Rust panics with overflow...

@MusicalNinjaRandInt I've also had the same issue when running tests locally. I also use WSL and files are stored in WSL file system. Please fix this! A while back, I...

```bash failures: ---- rules::flake8_executable::tests::rules::path_new_exe002_1_py_expects stdout ---- ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Snapshot Summary ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━Snapshot file: crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/flake8_executable/snapshots/ruff_linter__rules__flake8_executable__tests__EXE002_1.py.snapSnapshot: EXE002_1.py Source: crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/flake8_executable/mod.rs:43 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────-old snapshot +new results ────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 0 │-EXE002_1.py:1:1: EXE002 The file is executable but no shebang...

I think this can be closed? At least the given example cannot be reproduced unless there's something more to it.

Hey, Indeed, the field's `strict` parameter is not respected when validating union type. If I'm not incorrect, it seems that UnionValidator only uses its "global" strict_mode (from ValidationState) instead of...

> Hi @sydney-runkle, I'm interested in working on this issue and looking into the codebase now. While I ramp up myself, I'd like to discuss some design details with you....