←back to thread

Code formatting comes to uv experimentally

(pydevtools.com)
365 points tanelpoder | 3 comments | 21 Aug 25 20:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.412s | source
Show context
thanhhaimai ◴[21 Aug 25 21:20 UTC] No.44978239[source]▶
I'd rather `ruff` being merged with `ty` instead. `uv` for me is about package / project manager. It's not about code style. The only time `uv` should edit a code file is to update its dependencies (PEP 723).

On the other hand, both `ruff` and `ty` are about code style. They both edit the code, either to format or fix typing / lint issues. They are good candidates to be merged.

replies(7): >>44978308 #>>44978351 #>>44978465 #>>44978499 #>>44978500 #>>44979712 #>>44981364 #
charliermarsh ◴[21 Aug 25 21:49 UTC] No.44978500[source]▶
To clarify, `ruff` and `uv` aren't being merged. They remain separate tools. This is more about providing a simpler experience for users that don't want to think about their formatter as a separate tool.

The analogy would be to Cargo: `cargo fmt` just runs `rustfmt`, but you can also run `rustfmt` separately if you want.

replies(7): >>44978537 #>>44978539 #>>44979669 #>>44980254 #>>44980289 #>>44985044 #>>44985715 #
1. jgauth ◴[22 Aug 25 00:04 UTC] No.44979669[source]▶
This is cool. Is there a way to call ruff’s linter? Like `uv lint`, which would call `ruff check`.

To your analogy, it’d be like `cargo clippy`

replies(2): >>44980041 #>>44985912 #
2. godelski ◴[22 Aug 25 01:06 UTC] No.44980041[source]▶
You can always use `uvx ruff check` or `uv tool run ruff check`. Though honestly I find just running `ruff check` much easier.
3. baggiponte ◴[22 Aug 25 15:39 UTC] No.44985912[source]▶
uv ruffy sounds funny