docstring code formatter: add a --docstring-code-format parameter to ruff format CLI

[kdeldycke]

Following the implementation of experimental docstring format, a docstring-code-format configuration "knob" has been added in #8854. That way you can activate this new behavior by adding the following to ruff.toml (or any equivalent):

[format]
docstring-code-format = true

What I would like to have is a --docstring-code-format CLI option that I can use like so:

$ ruff format --docstring-code-format .

Why? Because I would like to test the docstring formatter on some projects, by the way of reuseable GitHub actions. And for these projects, I do not have the authority on the configuration files. I can only alter CLI parameters of ruff in the actions.

Is my proposal reasonable? Or is there a way I can pass arbitrary local configuration parameters via the CLI?

[MichaReiser]

Hy @kdeldycke

Thanks for opening this issue and explaining your use case.

We've been hesitant to expose all formater options because the main benefit of a formatter is consistency and it requires that all users use the same configuration, ideally commited in the repository. We only support --line-length today (see #8363). But we understand that there are use cases where providing the option via CLI is useful, your use case is one of them. Our preferred solution is that ruff has a generic way to set an arbitrary configuration value. It encourage using configuration files over using CLI options but enables use cases like yours. See #8368

Unfortunately, we haven't made progress with implementing a generic way to pass option values yet which, understandably, is unsatisfying for users.

I don't think there's a good workaround for use case at the moment. You could specify another configuration but it would override all other settings too (and disables the automatic configuration discovery).

Related to:

• Allow default configuration for integrators #8737

[kdeldycke]

Thanks @MichaReiser for the detailed explanation of the current state of the CLI. I totally understand the priority and decision of my feature request. There are things way more important to focus on.

In the mean time, I hacked my way into generating a custom local ruff.toml file to feed to my CLI.

[kdeldycke]

Another use case to consider, is using CLI parameters to setting up Ruff VScode extension:

[MichaReiser]

This will be supported once #9186 is merged