idea: add generic name to rule violations if message contains formatted strings when output in --statistics

[diceroll123]

This is probably a bit of a stretch to ask, but running ruff check --select=ANN201 --statistics for example will show something like

25445	ANN201	Missing return type annotation for public function `THING`

Which obviously does not actually apply to all 25445 instances of the ANN201 violations.

So I propose some generic analogue to Violation::message but for the basic violation. In this case, Missing return type annotation for public function.

Of course, this suggestion applies to all violations with formatted strings.

[MichaReiser]

This sounds reasonable, although adding one more field to all violations is a rather involved change (and having it on Message also has a performance cost). I wonder if we should just show the rule name instead with a link or change the titles of our rules to never include dynamic parts?

[charliermarsh]

Let's change this to use the rule name rather than the violation.