Combine lint and syntax error handling

[ntBre]

Summary

This is a spin-off from #18447 (comment) to avoid using Message::noqa_code to differentiate between lints and syntax errors. I went through all of the calls on main and on the branch from #18447, and the instance in ruff_server noted in the linked comment was actually the primary place where this was being done. Other calls to noqa_code are typically some variation of message.noqa_code().map_or(String::new, format!(...)), with the major exception of the gitlab output format:

ruff/crates/ruff_linter/src/message/gitlab.rs

Lines 93 to 105 in a120610

	let (description, check_name) = if let Some(code) = message.to_noqa_code() {
	(message.body().to_string(), code.to_string())
	} else {
	let description = message.body();
	let description_without_prefix = description
	.strip_prefix("SyntaxError: ")
	.unwrap_or(description);
	(
	description_without_prefix.to_string(),
	"syntax-error".to_string(),
	)
	};

which obviously assumes that None means syntax error. A simple fix here would be to use message.name() for check_name instead of the noqa code, but I'm not sure how breaking that would be. This could just be:

 let description = message.body();
 let description = description.strip_prefix("SyntaxError: ").unwrap_or(description).to_string();
 let check_name = message.name();

In that case. This sounds reasonable based on the Code Quality report format docs:

Name	Type	Description
check_name	String	A unique name representing the check, or rule, associated with this violation.

Test Plan

Existing tests

[github-actions]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

[dhruvmanila]

This looks pretty straightforward!

[dhruvmanila]

nit: we could short-circuit if code is None and avoid generating the edits although I think currently it's only the syntax errors that doesn't have code and those doesn't have fixes, so maybe this isn't that useful

[ntBre]

Yeah, I think the fix.is_some() || noqa_edit.is_some() condition should virtually guarantee this is never None, but I can move it to the top of the closure just in case. Thanks!

[MichaReiser]

Sweet