ContextQMD
Back to Ruff

Tests for `ruff:ignore` comments

crates/ruff_linter/resources/mdtest/suppression/ignore.md

0.15.1824.1 KB
Original Source

Tests for ruff:ignore comments

End-of-line ruff:ignore range

These are regression tests for https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/25644, where ruff:ignore comments behaved differently from noqa and ty:ignore comments when placed on the first line of a diagnostic range.

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["RUF015"]
py
suppressed = [  # noqa: RUF015
    *range(10)
][0]

not_suppressed = [  # ruff:ignore[RUF015]
    *range(10)
][0]

Standalone ruff:ignore range

This case also was previously not suppressed but will be now. The B903 diagnostic covers the entire class definition.

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["B903"]
py
# ruff:ignore[B903]
class Point:
    def __init__(self, x: int):
        self.x = x

Empty diagnostic range at end of file

Diagnostics with empty ranges should also be suppressible, as with noqa.

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["W292"]
py
suppressed = 1  # ruff:ignore[W292]

Block suppression boundaries

A block suppression should not apply to a diagnostic that starts inside the disabled range but ends after the matching ruff:enable comment:

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["RUF015"]
py
# ruff:disable[RUF015]
# error: [unnecessary-iterable-allocation-for-first-element]
not_suppressed = [
# ruff:enable[RUF015]
    *range(10)
][0]

This isn't strictly a problem because the formatter will indent and invalidate the ruff:enable comment here, raising RUF103, but it seems better for this not to work regardless of formatting.

This is how the comments should look instead:

py
# ruff:disable[RUF015]
not_suppressed = [
    *range(10)
][0]
# ruff:enable[RUF015]

Make sure the code actually matches

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["RUF015"]

This case tests that both the range and suppression code are checked.

py
# error: [unnecessary-iterable-allocation-for-first-element]
not_suppressed = [  # ruff:ignore[F401]
    *range(10)
][0]

Own-line ignore covers trailing comments

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = [ "E" ]

This should be suppressed:

py
# ruff:ignore[E262]
x = 1  #bad

An ignore comment inside a multi-line statement only covers the next physical line, including its trailing comment:

py
values = [
    # ruff:ignore[E262]
    1,  #bad
    # error: [no-space-after-inline-comment]
    2,  #bad
]

An own-line ignore does not extend to a comment on the following line:

py
# ruff:ignore[E265]
x = 1
# error: [no-space-after-block-comment]
#bad

An own-line ignore above a multi-line statement covers a trailing comment on its final line:

py
# ruff:ignore[E262]
x = (
    1
)  #bad

Respect parent suppression range

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = [ "F" ]

Some diagnostics have a "parent" range, which should also be accounted for when suppressing them with both noqa and ruff:ignore.

py
from foo import (  # noqa: F401
        bar
)

from foo import (  # ruff:ignore[F401]
        baz
)

Parent suppression range and unused comments

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = [ "F401", "RUF100" ]

For cases with both a parent and non-parent noqa comment, the parent is marked as used, while the non-parent, which falls later textually, is marked as unused.

py
from math import ( # noqa: F401
    # error: [unused-noqa]
    cos # noqa: F401
)

ruff:ignore should behave in the same way:

py
from sys import ( # ruff:ignore[F401]
    # error: [unused-noqa]
    argv # ruff:ignore[F401]
)

Trailing whitespace is included in the suppression range

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = [ "W291" ]

For both logical and non-logical newlines:

<!-- fmt:off -->
py
# ruff:ignore[W291]
foo    

values = [
    # ruff:ignore[W291]
    bar    
]
<!-- fmt:on -->

ruff:ignore comments within a disable/enable pair

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["E501", "F401", "RUF10"]

An intervening ruff:ignore directive shouldn't cause a disable/enable pair to be reported as unmatched. Instead, the range suppression should take precedence, and the inner ruff:ignore should be unused, just like a noqa comment:

py
# ruff:disable[F401]
# error: [unused-noqa]
import os  # ruff:ignore[F401]
# ruff:enable[F401]

# ruff:disable[F401]
# error: [unused-noqa]
import sys  # noqa: F401
# ruff:enable[F401]

This applies to own-line comments and nested comments too:

py
# ruff:disable[F401]
# error: [unused-noqa]
# ruff:ignore[F401]
import os

# error: [unused-noqa]
import sys  # noqa: F401
# ruff:enable[F401]

# ruff:disable[F401]
# snapshot: unused-noqa
import sys  # start # ruff:ignore[F401] # end
# ruff:enable[F401]
snapshot
error[RUF100]: Unused suppression (unused: `F401`)
  --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:21:21
   |
21 | import sys  # start # ruff:ignore[F401] # end
   |                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   |
help: Remove unused suppression
18 |
19 | # ruff:disable[F401]
20 | # snapshot: unused-noqa
   - import sys  # start # ruff:ignore[F401] # end
21 + import sys  # start # end
22 | # ruff:enable[F401]
23 | # ruff:disable[E501]
24 | import os  # ruff:ignore[F401]
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior

and cases where the disable and ignore suppress different codes:

py
# ruff:disable[E501]
import os  # ruff:ignore[F401]
message = "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"
# ruff:enable[E501]

This should also work for ruff:ignore comments on the same line as the disable comment:

py
def f():
    # error: [unused-noqa] "FIX002"
    # ruff:disable[F401] # ruff:ignore[FIX002]
    import os
    # ruff:enable[F401]

file-ignore comments within a disable/enable pair

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["F401", "RUF10"]

A file-ignore within a range suppression takes precedence and marks the disable as unused:

py
# error: [unused-noqa]
# ruff:disable[F401]
# ruff:file-ignore[F401]
import os
message = "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"
# ruff:enable[F401]

Disallow human-readable names in stable

toml
[lint]
preview = false
select = ["F401", "RUF102"]

With preview disabled, this should continue to emit F401, as well as RUF102:

py
# snapshot: invalid-rule-code
# ruff:disable[unused-import]
# error: [unused-import]
import math
# ruff:enable[unused-import]
snapshot
error[RUF102]: Invalid rule code in suppression: unused-import
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:2:16
  |
2 | # ruff:disable[unused-import]
  |                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3 | # error: [unused-import]
4 | import math
5 | # ruff:enable[unused-import]
  |               -------------
  |
help: Enable `lint.preview` to use rule names
help: Remove the suppression comment
1 | # snapshot: invalid-rule-code
  - # ruff:disable[unused-import]
2 | # error: [unused-import]
3 | import math
  - # ruff:enable[unused-import]
4 | # snapshot: invalid-rule-code
5 | # ruff:disable[unused-import, unknown-rule]
6 | # error: [unused-import]

Emit both (non-fix-title) help messages when rule names and unknown codes are present:

py
# snapshot: invalid-rule-code
# ruff:disable[unused-import, unknown-rule]
# error: [unused-import]
import sys
# ruff:enable[unused-import, unknown-rule]
snapshot
error[RUF102]: Invalid rule code in suppression: unknown-rule, unused-import
  --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:7:1
   |
 7 | # ruff:disable[unused-import, unknown-rule]
   | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 8 | # error: [unused-import]
 9 | import sys
10 | # ruff:enable[unused-import, unknown-rule]
   | ------------------------------------------
   |
help: Add non-Ruff rule codes to the `lint.external` configuration option
help: Enable `lint.preview` to use rule names
help: Remove the suppression comment
4 | import math
5 | # ruff:enable[unused-import]
6 | # snapshot: invalid-rule-code
  - # ruff:disable[unused-import, unknown-rule]
7 | # error: [unused-import]
8 | import sys
  - # ruff:enable[unused-import, unknown-rule]

Allow human-readable names in preview

Enable preview, unused-import and several RUF rules to check for valid suppression comments:

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["F401", "RUF100", "RUF102", "RUF103", "RUF104"]

ruff:ignore

This comment should suppress the F401 diagnostic and not emit any other errors:

py
# ruff:ignore[unused-import]
import math

ruff:file-ignore

File-level ignores should also work:

py
# ruff:file-ignore[unused-import]

import math
import sys
import traceback

ruff:disable

As should block-level ignores:

py
import math  # error: [unused-import]

# ruff:disable[unused-import]
import sys
# ruff:enable[unused-import]

import traceback  # error: [unused-import]

The disable and enable comments must match textually, even when a rule code and name identify the same rule:

py
# error: [unmatched-suppression-comment]
# ruff:disable[unused-import]
import math
# snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
# ruff:enable[F401]
snapshot
error[RUF103]: Invalid suppression comment: no matching 'disable' comment
  --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:12:1
   |
12 | # ruff:enable[F401]
   | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   |
help: Remove suppression comment
9  | # ruff:disable[unused-import]
10 | import math
11 | # snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
   - # ruff:enable[F401]
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior

noqa

Old-style noqa comments should continue to reject rule names:

py
# error: [unused-import]
import math  # noqa: unused-import

but obviously continue working with rule codes:

py
import math  # noqa: F401

invalid-rule-code

Unknown rule names should emit RUF102, while preserving valid names in the same suppression:

py
# snapshot: invalid-rule-code
# ruff:ignore[unused-import, not-a-rule]
import pathlib
snapshot
error[RUF102]: Invalid rule code in suppression: not-a-rule
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:2:30
  |
2 | # ruff:ignore[unused-import, not-a-rule]
  |                              ^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Add non-Ruff rule codes to the `lint.external` configuration option
help: Remove the rule code `not-a-rule`
1 | # snapshot: invalid-rule-code
  - # ruff:ignore[unused-import, not-a-rule]
2 + # ruff:ignore[unused-import]
3 | import pathlib

unused-noqa

Unused suppressions with rule codes should still emit RUF100 with an appropriate error message:

py
# error: [unused-noqa]
import math  # noqa: F401

# error: [unused-noqa]
import math  # ruff:ignore[F401]

# snapshot: unused-noqa
import math  # ruff:ignore[unused-import]

math.cos(1)
snapshot
error[RUF100]: Unused suppression (unused: `unused-import`)
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:8:14
  |
8 | import math  # ruff:ignore[unused-import]
  |              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove unused suppression
5  | import math  # ruff:ignore[F401]
6  |
7  | # snapshot: unused-noqa
   - import math  # ruff:ignore[unused-import]
8  + import math
9  |
10 | math.cos(1)
11 | # snapshot: unused-noqa

A rule code and human-readable name for the same rule are treated as separate suppressions. The second suppression is therefore unused rather than duplicated:

py
# snapshot: unused-noqa
# ruff:ignore[F401, unused-import]
import pathlib
snapshot
error[RUF100]: Unused suppression (unused: `unused-import`)
  --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:12:1
   |
12 | # ruff:ignore[F401, unused-import]
   | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   |
help: Remove unused suppression
9  |
10 | math.cos(1)
11 | # snapshot: unused-noqa
   - # ruff:ignore[F401, unused-import]
12 + # ruff:ignore[F401]
13 | import pathlib

Nested comments

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["F401", "RUF10"]

ruff:ignore comments nested within other comments should still work:

py
import math  # some comment # ruff:ignore[F401] # another comment

Invalid suppressions should only delete the suppression part:

py
# snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
# error: [unused-import]
import sys  # explanation # ruff:ignore # another
snapshot
error[RUF103]: Invalid suppression comment: missing suppression codes like `[E501, ...]`
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:4:27
  |
4 | import sys  # explanation # ruff:ignore # another
  |                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove suppression comment
1 | import math  # some comment # ruff:ignore[F401] # another comment
2 | # snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
3 | # error: [unused-import]
  - import sys  # explanation # ruff:ignore # another
4 + import sys  # explanation # another
5 | # error: [unmatched-suppression-comment]
6 | # error: [invalid-suppression-comment]
7 | # ruff:disable[F401] # ruff:enable[F401]
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior

Nested disable/enable comments on the same line are invalid. Instead of trying to match them up to remove them in one operation, they are respectively treated as unmatched (disable) and invalid (trailing enable).

py
# error: [unmatched-suppression-comment]
# error: [invalid-suppression-comment]
# ruff:disable[F401] # ruff:enable[F401]
import foo

Invalid nested block and file comments

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["F401", "RUF10"]

Nested disable and file-ignore comments are also invalid and don't suppress diagnostics on the following line:

py
# snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
# explanation # ruff:disable[F401]
# error: [unused-import]
import os

# error: [invalid-suppression-comment]
# explanation # ruff:file-ignore[F401]
# error: [unused-import]
import sys
snapshot
error[RUF103]: Invalid suppression comment: trailing comments are only supported for ruff:ignore suppressions
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:2:15
  |
2 | # explanation # ruff:disable[F401]
  |               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove suppression comment
1 | # snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
  - # explanation # ruff:disable[F401]
2 + # explanation
3 | # error: [unused-import]
4 | import os
5 |
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior

Similarly, a nested enable is invalid and doesn't re-enable a disabled rule:

py
# error: [unmatched-suppression-comment]
# ruff:disable[F401]
# error: [invalid-suppression-comment]
# comment # ruff:enable[F401]
import foo

Nested comments on comment-only lines

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["F401", "RUF10", "FIX002"]

Nested suppression comments on a comment-only line are treated as trailing on the comment itself and don't suppress diagnostics on the following line:

py
# error: [unused-noqa]
# explanation # ruff:ignore[F401] # another
# error: [unused-import]
import pathlib

def foo():
    # error: [unused-noqa]
    # explanation # ruff:ignore[F401] # another
    # error: [unused-import]
    import pathlib

This can still be useful if the comment itself has a diagnostic:

py
# TODO this comment has a todo # noqa: FIX002
# TODO this comment has a todo # ruff:ignore[FIX002]
a = 10

unused-noqa

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["E501", "F821", "RUF10"]

RUF100 should have an unsafe fix when deleting a leading suppression would change the placement semantics of a later suppression. The file-ignore is initially invalid here, but removing the unused ignore would make it valid, so the fix is unsafe:

py
# snapshot: unused-noqa
# error: [invalid-suppression-comment]
# ruff:ignore[E501] # ruff:file-ignore[F821]
# error: [undefined-name]
undefined_name
snapshot
error[RUF100]: Unused suppression (unused: `E501`)
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:3:1
  |
3 | # ruff:ignore[E501] # ruff:file-ignore[F821]
  | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove unused suppression
1 | # snapshot: unused-noqa
2 | # error: [invalid-suppression-comment]
  - # ruff:ignore[E501] # ruff:file-ignore[F821]
3 + # ruff:file-ignore[F821]
4 | # error: [undefined-name]
5 | undefined_name
6 | # snapshot: unused-noqa
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior

A later valid suppression also needs to be considered because removing the preceding comment can change its semantics. In this case, removing the disable comment would transform the ignore from a trailing comment on the disable comment to an own-line ignore comment, which would start suppressing the F821 diagnostic:

py
# snapshot: unused-noqa
# error: [unused-noqa] "F821"
# ruff:disable[E501] # ruff:ignore[F821]
# error: [undefined-name]
undefined_name
# ruff:enable[E501]
snapshot
error[RUF100]: Unused suppression (unused: `E501`)
  --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:8:1
   |
 8 | # ruff:disable[E501] # ruff:ignore[F821]
   | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 9 | # error: [undefined-name]
10 | undefined_name
11 | # ruff:enable[E501]
   | -------------------
   |
help: Remove unused suppression
5  | undefined_name
6  | # snapshot: unused-noqa
7  | # error: [unused-noqa] "F821"
   - # ruff:disable[E501] # ruff:ignore[F821]
8  + # ruff:ignore[F821]
9  | # error: [undefined-name]
10 | undefined_name
   - # ruff:enable[E501]
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior

unused-noqa paired fix

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["E501", "RUF10", "FIX002"]

Deleting either half of a disable/enable pair should make the fix unsafe if in a nested context:

py
# snapshot: unused-noqa
# ruff:disable[E501]
value = 1
# ruff:enable[E501] # TODO # ruff:ignore[FIX002]
snapshot
error[RUF100]: Unused suppression (unused: `E501`)
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:2:1
  |
2 | # ruff:disable[E501]
  | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3 | value = 1
4 | # ruff:enable[E501] # TODO # ruff:ignore[FIX002]
  | --------------------
  |
help: Remove unused suppression
1 | # snapshot: unused-noqa
  - # ruff:disable[E501]
2 | value = 1
  - # ruff:enable[E501] # TODO # ruff:ignore[FIX002]
3 + # TODO # ruff:ignore[FIX002]
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior

unused-noqa partial fix

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["E501", "F401", "F821", "RUF10"]

Removing a code from a multi-code suppression doesn't promote the later suppression, so the fix is still safe:

py
# snapshot: unused-noqa
# error: [invalid-suppression-comment]
# ruff:ignore[E501, F821] # ruff:file-ignore[F401]
undefined_name
snapshot
error[RUF100]: Unused suppression (unused: `E501`)
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:3:1
  |
3 | # ruff:ignore[E501, F821] # ruff:file-ignore[F401]
  | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove unused suppression
1 | # snapshot: unused-noqa
2 | # error: [invalid-suppression-comment]
  - # ruff:ignore[E501, F821] # ruff:file-ignore[F401]
3 + # ruff:ignore[F821] # ruff:file-ignore[F401]
4 | undefined_name

invalid-rule-code

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["F821", "RUF10"]

The RUF102 fix should also be unsafe when it would promote a later suppression:

py
# snapshot: invalid-rule-code
# error: [invalid-suppression-comment]
# ruff:ignore[XYZ] # ruff:file-ignore[F821]
# error: [undefined-name]
undefined_name
snapshot
error[RUF102]: Invalid rule code in suppression: XYZ
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:3:15
  |
3 | # ruff:ignore[XYZ] # ruff:file-ignore[F821]
  |               ^^^
  |
help: Add non-Ruff rule codes to the `lint.external` configuration option
help: Remove the suppression comment
1 | # snapshot: invalid-rule-code
2 | # error: [invalid-suppression-comment]
  - # ruff:ignore[XYZ] # ruff:file-ignore[F821]
3 + # ruff:file-ignore[F821]
4 | # error: [undefined-name]
5 | undefined_name
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior

invalid-suppression-comment

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["F401", "F821", "RUF10"]

The same applies to fixes for invalid suppression placement:

py
def f():
    # snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
    # error: [unused-noqa]
    # explanation # ruff:file-ignore[F401] # ruff:ignore[F401]
    # error: [unused-import]
    import os
snapshot
error[RUF103]: Invalid suppression comment: trailing comments are only supported for ruff:ignore suppressions
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:4:19
  |
4 |     # explanation # ruff:file-ignore[F401] # ruff:ignore[F401]
  |                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove suppression comment
1 | def f():
2 |     # snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
3 |     # error: [unused-noqa]
  -     # explanation # ruff:file-ignore[F401] # ruff:ignore[F401]
4 +     # explanation # ruff:ignore[F401]
5 |     # error: [unused-import]
6 |     import os
7 | # snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior

And parse errors:

py
# snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
# error: [unused-noqa]
# explanation # ruff:ignore # ruff:ignore[F821]
# error: [undefined-name]
undefined_name
snapshot
error[RUF103]: Invalid suppression comment: missing suppression codes like `[E501, ...]`
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:9:15
  |
9 | # explanation # ruff:ignore # ruff:ignore[F821]
  |               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove suppression comment
6  |     import os
7  | # snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
8  | # error: [unused-noqa]
   - # explanation # ruff:ignore # ruff:ignore[F821]
9  + # explanation # ruff:ignore[F821]
10 | # error: [undefined-name]
11 | undefined_name
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior

Invalid nested comments

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["RUF103"]

Parse errors should only highlight and delete the nested suppression:

py
# snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
import os  # explanation # ruff:unknown[F401] # another
# snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
import sys  # explanation # ruff:ignore[F401 F841] # another
snapshot
error[RUF103]: Invalid suppression comment: unknown ruff directive
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:2:26
  |
2 | import os  # explanation # ruff:unknown[F401] # another
  |                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove suppression comment
1 | # snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
  - import os  # explanation # ruff:unknown[F401] # another
2 + import os  # explanation # another
3 | # snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
4 | import sys  # explanation # ruff:ignore[F401 F841] # another
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior


error[RUF103]: Invalid suppression comment: missing comma between codes
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:4:27
  |
4 | import sys  # explanation # ruff:ignore[F401 F841] # another
  |                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove suppression comment
1 | # snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
2 | import os  # explanation # ruff:unknown[F401] # another
3 | # snapshot: invalid-suppression-comment
  - import sys  # explanation # ruff:ignore[F401 F841] # another
4 + import sys  # explanation # another
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior

Recovery after invalid nested comments

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["F401", "RUF103"]

A malformed nested suppression should not prevent a later valid suppression from being parsed:

py
# error: [invalid-suppression-comment]
import os  # before # ruff:ignore # ruff:ignore[F401] # after

Fixing unused nested comments

toml
[lint]
preview = true
select = ["RUF100"]

Fixes for unused nested suppressions should preserve the surrounding comment fragments:

py
# snapshot: unused-noqa
value = 1  # before # ruff:ignore[F401] # after

# snapshot: unused-noqa
value = 1  # before # ruff:ignore[F401]
snapshot
error[RUF100]: Unused suppression (non-enabled: `F401`)
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:2:21
  |
2 | value = 1  # before # ruff:ignore[F401] # after
  |                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove unused suppression
1 | # snapshot: unused-noqa
  - value = 1  # before # ruff:ignore[F401] # after
2 + value = 1  # before # after
3 |
4 | # snapshot: unused-noqa
5 | value = 1  # before # ruff:ignore[F401]
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior


error[RUF100]: Unused suppression (non-enabled: `F401`)
 --> src/mdtest_snippet.py:5:21
  |
5 | value = 1  # before # ruff:ignore[F401]
  |                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove unused suppression
2 | value = 1  # before # ruff:ignore[F401] # after
3 |
4 | # snapshot: unused-noqa
  - value = 1  # before # ruff:ignore[F401]
5 + value = 1  # before
note: This is an unsafe fix and may change runtime behavior