Replace black with ruff and fix import declarations and f string

[Dvdandrades]

Summary of the changes / Why this is an improvement

Add Ruff to dev dependencies
Remove black from dev dependencies
Update GitHub Actions CI lint job to run Ruff instead of black
Update DEVELOPMENT.md

Run Ruff and fix imports declarations and f string

Add Ruff config in pyproject.toml with just the line-lenght. It can be improved with more rules

Checklist

• Link to issue this PR refers to (if applicable): Fixes Change linter, from black to ruff #16

[surister]

Hey @Dvdandrades, Thank you for the PR, I approved the CI run and as you can see the command uv run ruff check trips the CI because of the new lint errors.

Now that ruff is up and running, you can run uv run format to fix most 'fixable' errors, then manually fix anything if it cannot do it automatically, if you need any further advice let me know 👌

[amotl]

Thanks for this patch. Writing down the dependency for ruff is better like this, to not cause any behaviour drift, due to new formatting rules, and deprecations of older ones, coming from future releases.

Suggested change

	"ruff>=0.14.10",
	"ruff<0.15",

[Dvdandrades]

Thank you for the clarification. I was checking other repositories and didn't understand this at first when I saw it. Now I understand why it's done this way.

[amotl]

Dependabot also understands this paradigm, and will submit corresponding patches, so maintainers can either merge without ado (if nothing changes), or accompany the PR with required adjustments about code formatting rules coming from a newer minor version of ruff.

• Update ruff requirement from <0.13 to <0.14 cratedb-toolkit#535

[amotl]

The Django adapter should also be treated as a library, because it is usually not installed standalone, but pulled in as a dependency. In this spirit, the lock file can be removed. Package consumers can't use it anyway.

• https://github.com/orgs/python-poetry/discussions/7847
• https://discuss.python.org/t/the-purpose-of-a-lock-file/38756
• https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/faq.html#why-have-cargolock-in-version-control

[Dvdandrades]

Thanks for the information. So, from what I understand, in cases where the project is a library, it's good practice to include the lock file in the .gitignore file or simply remove it, right?

[Dvdandrades]

I believe all the changes have been made correctly. I've updated the branch so that ruff could fix the missing error. I've updated the ruff dependency and added the .lock file to the .gitignore to ensure consistency with other repositories.

[amotl]

Excellent, thanks. Please squash ¹ your commits before merging.

Footnotes

1. Nit: Doesn't need to be a single commit, do it at your disposal, but thinning out would be good (e.g. one for adding ruff + formatting, and another one for removing the lock file). Thanks! ↩

[amotl]

Nit: Just in case you want to be explicitly checking for False. In this case, an identity match is applicable, contrary to the typical equality match.

Suggested change

	assert not c["verify_ssl_cert"]
	assert c["verify_ssl_cert"] is False

[Dvdandrades]

Suggested change done. Thank you so much for the explanations. I've learned a lot.