Options included via ruff rule F841 (or equivalent) are unlinked

[charliermarsh]

Should we just make these direct links to the documentation rather than references?

[charliermarsh]

Alternatively, should we rewrite these links during ruff rule?

[ngnpope]

Yeah. It looks like mdcat has some limitations, including:

Not supported:

• CommonMark extensions: Footnotes and tables
• Re-filling paragraphs

Reflowing paragraphs will be a problem, especially with longer links.

An alternative could be termimad which supports reflowing and tables, but I think that is lacking in other areas, e.g. code highlighting.

[not-my-profile]

I intentionally did not include these links in the ruff rule output. The installed ruff may not always be up to date so having its output link to the latest documentation could be confusing.

I implemented the config subcommand in #2775, which can show all the information we have about config settings. I think it would make sense to either automatically add a note ``Learn more about these options with ruff config <option>``` or alternatively simply automatically including the option description in the ruff` rule output.

Reflowing paragraphs will be a problem, especially with longer links.

Reflowing is not a problem because we can use CommonMark link definitions.