Ruff linting

[william-billaud]

This PR replace flake/blake/isort with ruff, as used in other dissect project.

Partially fix #26
This would require additional works, especially regarding typing but this will probably be easier to review in a different PR.

Regarding Ignored rules, I have the following statistics of what should be fixed if PT, ANN, RUF AND C4 are enabled.

• 105 ANN001 missing-type-function-argument
• 76 ANN201 missing-return-type-undocumented-public-function
• 18 ANN202 missing-return-type-private-function
• 6 RUF005 collection-literal-concatenation
• 5 C416 unnecessary-comprehension
• 5 PT019 pytest-fixture-param-without-value
• 2 ANN206 missing-return-type-class-method
• 2 C417 unnecessary-map
• 1 RUF012 mutable-class-default

I do not plan to work on it in a near time and fixing some of these issue would require dig more in the codebase, to ensure it does not break anything.
Even if it does not fully fix the issue, is better than nothing. IMO Original issue should be amended to specify work left to do, and this commit added to .git-blame-ignore-revs

[Schamper]

Please don't spend too much time on dissect.eventlog for your own sake. I plan to completely rewrite this in the near-ish future (before we go monorepo).

[william-billaud]

I do not plan to spend more time in a near future, and for most repo it took me 5 to 15 minutes to fork + creates issues + make change + PR, this one took me maybe 30 or 45 minutes, this is OK.

But let me know if there is some other repos with heavy rework planned before monorepo that I should skip.

[Schamper]

But let me know if there is some other repos with heavy rework planned before monorepo that I should skip.

This should be the only one!

[Miauwkeru]

@Schamper is there anything else that needs to be done on this pr? I am going to change this project in the style of the other projects and thought of using these changes as a base

[Miauwkeru]

I pushed the other changes to completely fix the ruff linting to this branch. It also contains the typehints, tho those are up to change once the actual refactoring of the project takes place.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 80.64516% with 60 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 81.28%. Comparing base (2097afb) to head (185234c).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
dissect/eventlog/wevtutil.py	0.00%	36 Missing ⚠️
dissect/eventlog/bxml/bxml.py	90.21%	9 Missing ⚠️
dissect/eventlog/wevt/wevt_object.py	89.33%	8 Missing ⚠️
dissect/eventlog/evtx/evtx.py	63.63%	4 Missing ⚠️
dissect/eventlog/wevt/wevt.py	95.45%	2 Missing ⚠️
dissect/eventlog/evt/evt.py	93.75%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #32      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.90%   81.28%   +0.38%     
==========================================
  Files           9       17       +8     
  Lines         885      919      +34     
==========================================
+ Hits          716      747      +31     
- Misses        169      172       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	81.28% <80.64%> (+0.38%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 10 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing william-billaud:ruff_linting (185234c) with main (2097afb)}

[twiggler]

I was wondering, do we have references to documentation explaning what these classes model?

[Miauwkeru]

I added a docstring with a reference to what I initially used to get to these answers

issues resolved