style: replace black, isort, flake8 and autoflake with ruff

[schwarbf]

This PR aims to close the open issue 453.

I tried to do as little code changes as possible. I did the following:

• I started taking the ruff config from the docling repository
• Using ruff now as a replacement for black, isort, autoflake and flake8
• Ran ruff format (formatted approx. 30 files) and ruff check --fix (fixed approx. 50 warnings)
• Excluded the test/data from ruff
• Added some rules to the ignore list that would have affected > 3 changes. Feel free to remove any again to see possible changes.
• Set the line length again to 120 in pyproject.toml (was 120 in .flake8 file, but 88 in pyproject.toml)

FYI: When checking which commit added ruff to docling, you can see that 5458a88
also changed a significant number of files and added some rules to the ignore list.

[github-actions]

✅ DCO Check Passed

Thanks @schwarbf, all your commits are properly signed off. 🎉

[dosubot]

Related Documentation

Checked 7 published document(s) in 0 knowledge base(s). No updates required.

^{How did I do? Any feedback?}  

[mergify]

Merge Protections

Your pull request matches the following merge protections and will not be merged until they are valid.

🟢 Enforce conventional commit

Wonderful, this rule succeeded.

Make sure that we follow https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/

• title ~= ^(fix|feat|docs|style|refactor|perf|test|build|ci|chore|revert)(?:\(.+\))?(!)?:

🟢 Require two reviewer for test updates

Wonderful, this rule succeeded.

When test data is updated, we require two reviewers

• #approved-reviews-by >= 2

[ceberam]

Was this suggested by Ruff?
We still support 3.9 (it may change at some point) and the | syntax is only valid from 3.10. We should therefore keep typing.Optional

[schwarbf]

Okay I see. It's weird since I had actually set :

[tool.ruff]
target-version = "py39"

Anyways, I will revert this part.

[ceberam]

Thanks! However, I've seen that the syntax is still in other places, like in test/test_page_chunker.py

[schwarbf]

Can you please check again? I found 2 remaining spots, where the syntax dtype | None was used instead of Optional[dtype]. The respective rule UP045 is also in the ignore list such that no errors are raised in the future.

[schwarbf]

@ceberam PR should be ready. Let me know if you want me to rebase or merge with docling-core:main or if you want to do it yourself?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 78.85305% with 118 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
docling_core/types/doc/page.py	48.71%	20 Missing ⚠️
docling_core/experimental/idoctags.py	79.12%	19 Missing ⚠️
docling_core/transforms/serializer/html.py	61.53%	10 Missing ⚠️
...s/chunker/code_chunking/_language_code_chunkers.py	92.17%	9 Missing ⚠️
docling_core/types/legacy_doc/doc_ocr.py	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
docling_core/types/legacy_doc/base.py	70.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
...ocling_core/search/json_schema_to_search_mapper.py	63.63%	4 Missing ⚠️
docling_core/transforms/serializer/doctags.py	60.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
...core/transforms/visualizer/key_value_visualizer.py	33.33%	4 Missing ⚠️
docling_core/types/doc/base.py	77.77%	4 Missing ⚠️
... and 13 more

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[ceberam]

@schwarbf sorry for the late reply. Would you mind rebasing to the latest main?

[ceberam]

@schwarbf I have rebased and force-pushed your commits. I'll add a couple of them to fix some small details and apply a couple of additional style rules.

[schwarbf]

@schwarbf I have rebased and force-pushed your commits. I'll add a couple of them to fix some small details and apply a couple of additional style rules.

@ceberam That's fine thanks. I was going to do it tonight. Seems like we're ready to merge apart from the codecov check which was probably failing before as well?

[ceberam]

@schwarbf I have rebased and force-pushed your commits. I'll add a couple of them to fix some small details and apply a couple of additional style rules.

@ceberam That's fine thanks. I was going to do it tonight. Seems like we're ready to merge apart from the codecov check which was probably failing before as well?

All good @schwarbf , thanks for your contribution!