Add ignore_words_regex configuration option

[dmohns]

Brief summary of the change made

Fixes #3089

I added this to all rules that are based on L010, but this does not cover all rules that have the ignore_words option.

Are there any other side effects of this change that we should be aware of?

Pull Request checklist

• Please confirm you have completed any of the necessary steps below.

• Included test cases to demonstrate any code changes, which may be one or more of the following:

  • .yml rule test cases in test/fixtures/rules/std_rule_cases.
  • .sql/.yml parser test cases in test/fixtures/dialects (note YML files can be auto generated with tox -e generate-fixture-yml).
  • Full autofix test cases in test/fixtures/linter/autofix.
  • Other.

• Added appropriate documentation for the change.

• Created GitHub issues for any relevant followup/future enhancements if appropriate.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3098 (f096ca8) into main (aa704c4) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main     #3098   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files          164       164           
  Lines        12168     12184   +16     
=========================================
+ Hits         12168     12184   +16     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/sqlfluff/core/rules/config_info.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/sqlfluff/rules/L014.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/sqlfluff/rules/L030.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/sqlfluff/rules/L063.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/sqlfluff/rules/L010.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/sqlfluff/rules/L029.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/sqlfluff/rules/L057.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/sqlfluff/rules/L059.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update aa704c4...f096ca8. Read the comment docs.

[tunetheweb]

I added this to all rules that are based on L010, but this does not cover all rules that have the ignore_words option.

I think this is confusing, and think we should ensure it's available everywhere ignore_words is. It's a little extra work, but not too much.

[dmohns]

While working on writing the tests I stumbled upon one small thing.

I am using regex.match() to apply the regex. However, maybe the way match works is unintuitive to users not too familiar with Python internals.

For example

>>> print(regex.match("hash$", "aliashash"))
None
>>> print(regex.match("^alias", "aliashash"))
<regex.Match object; span=(0, 5), match='alias'>

Would it be more suitable to use regex.search here?

[tunetheweb]

regex.search seems more sensible to me, but not a python expert here.

@barrywhart @WittierDinosaur any thoughts or concerns here?

Obviously there is a risk of someone slowing down SQLFluff with a really complex regex, but I think given it will only be applied to small identifiers, and that this is configured by the user, I'm OK with that. I presume python does exit early if it's not set, in code like this and won't actually execute the regex in this instance?:

        if self.ignore_words_regex and regex.match(
            self.ignore_words_regex, context.segment.raw
        ):

[tunetheweb]

LGTM!

Would still be good to get @barrywhart and @WittierDinosaur 's view if they get a chance so won't merge yet.

[tunetheweb]

This good to merge now?

[barrywhart]

Looks good!