add ruff

[fkromer]

No description provided.

[fkromer]

closes #287

[fkromer]

The configuration defines defaults explicitly. Format rules are configured to work with google docstring format (has no formal spec, is de-facto standard). Single quotes are migrated to double-quotes (cause de-facto standard.)

[colesmj]

@fkromer Thank you for the requested changes,

A couple of comments on your pull request:

1. This does not seem to be a clean PR for the intended purpose - the PR title is to add support for Ruff (a Rust-based linter for Python), yet there are multitude of other changes in your commits (mostly minor reformatting and other changes related to 3.9 end of support perhaps?). It would be ideal to have a clean PR for the addition of Ruff.

2. Ruff is a Rust-based linter for Python, a cutting edge module that is rapidly evolving - please make the case if you can why pylint, a mature python-based linter for python, is not sufficient or desired.

3. Thank you for the realpython link on docstrings. As a project we should consider which to standardize on; reStructuredText or NumPy/SciPy seem to be the more python-appropriate and formalized while the google docstring is simpler but as you highlighted there is not formal spec.

[fkromer]

@colesmj Thanks for the review.

1. You are right, the minor reformatting is not specific to the PR. The purpose of the commit is to temporarily showcase in what code formatting would result in. I can revert the commits right before PR merge and provide as separate PR afterwards.
2. ruff is the de-factor standard in modern Python projects. It provides hundreds of rules out of the box and replaces a variety of other tools (black -> formatting, isort -> import sorting, mccabe -> complexity analyzation, ...) cause ruff adopted their most reasonable and valuable rules. fastapi uses ruff, pydantic uses ruff, a lot of libraries in the ML domain use it. TBH I don't know of a single modern project which is using pylint these days anymore.
3. Right, it would make sense to agree on a docstring format still. Is not part of this PR. The current configuration has been made consistent with the google style docstrings which are in the current code base already. Changing those should be a rather simple AI driven "replace the google style docstrings with XXX style docstrings".

I'll comment in the PR for more fine-grained further explanation.

[fkromer]

ruff rule set can be extended here. E.g. to add pylint rules refer to here.

[fkromer]

Relates to #294

[fkromer]

@colesmj

Thank you for the realpython link on docstrings. As a project we should consider which to standardize on; reStructuredText or NumPy/SciPy seem to be the more python-appropriate and formalized while the google docstring is simpler but as you highlighted there is not formal spec.

I‘ve referenced some further examples w.r.t. docstring formats in #294 . Personally I’m totally fine with every alternative.