Combine suppression code diagnostics

[amyreese]

Summary

• Report a single combined UnusedNOQA diagnostic when any range suppression
  has one or more unused, disabled, or duplicate lint codes.
• Report a single combined InvalidRuleCode diagnostic for any range suppression
  with one or more invalid lint codes.

Test Plan

Updated fixtures and snapshots

Fixes #22429, #21873

[astral-sh-bot]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

[MichaReiser]

Nice

[MichaReiser]

The suppression range here is a bit misleading because it suggests that all codes are unused. I think I would either:

• Highlight the entire suppression diagnostic. That makes it clear that something's up with the suppression and not with an individual code
• Keep underlining the codes, but only group adjacent codes (in which case we'd emit two diagnostics in this case). I slightly prefer this as it gives more precise ranges.

[MichaReiser]

Don't bother with this if this matches what we do for noqa today.

[amyreese]

It looks like noqa highlights the entire noqa comment:

RUF100 [*] Unused `noqa` directive (unused: `F401`, `E741`)
 --> foo.py:2:12
  |
1 | def f():
2 |     x = 1  # noqa: F401, F841, E741
  |            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
help: Remove unused `noqa` directive
1 | def f():
  -     x = 1  # noqa: F401, F841, E741
2 +     x = 1  # noqa: F841

[MichaReiser]

I would then suggest aligning with noqa (which I think should be relatively easy?)

[ntBre]

Yeah I liked the idea in #21873 (comment) of extending the range to only the adjacent codes (if I understood correctly), but aligning with noqa makes sense too.

[amyreese]

I've updated the highlighting logic so that:

• if only one code exists or only one is being removed, it highlights that one code
• otherwise, it highlights the entire suppression

I think this matches noqa now.

[ntBre]

Nice!

[ntBre]

This is probably better suited for a follow-up, and I thought I saw some previous discussion of this, but do these need to be Strings? I tried making UnusedCodes::disabled a Vec<&'a str> and it seems to be working locally. Combining that with into_values makes this a little nicer:

Suggested change

	disabled: group
	.disabled_codes
	.iter()
	.map(ToString::to_string)
	.collect_vec(),
	disabled: group.disabled_codes

[amyreese]

I didn't like this either, but since it would also affect the noqa system I'd prefer to put that change in a different PR

[ntBre]

Yeah I liked the idea in #21873 (comment) of extending the range to only the adjacent codes (if I understood correctly), but aligning with noqa makes sense too.

[MichaReiser]

Congrats! I think we can now close the block level suppression tracking issue