CI: Remove redundant check

[tqa236]

I removed 2 checks that's already covered in ruff's PGH003 and PGH004

The second commit is just an example that the check works. Will revert before merging if approved.

ruff....................................................................................................Failed
- hook id: ruff
- exit code: 1

pandas/compat/numpy/function.py:209:18: PGH003 Use specific rule codes when ignoring type issues
pandas/tests/computation/test_compat.py:30:18: PGH004 Use specific rule codes when using `noqa`
Found 2 errors.

• closes #xxxx (Replace xxxx with the GitHub issue number)
• Tests added and passed if fixing a bug or adding a new feature
• All code checks passed.
• Added type annotations to new arguments/methods/functions.
• Added an entry in the latest doc/source/whatsnew/vX.X.X.rst file if fixing a bug or adding a new feature.

[datapythonista]

Thanks for the work on this @tqa236. I only see one of the errors failing in the CI. Is this working as expected?

[tqa236]

hello @datapythonista , the CI works as expected. The 2 errors are caught by ruff and made the pre-commit job failed, as shown here. In addition, I think recently even mypy will also catch the bare type ignore error, and raise that error again in the mypy check.

mypy.....................................................................Failed
- hook id: mypy
- duration: 77.99s
- exit code: 1

pandas/compat/numpy/function.py:209: error: "type: ignore" comment without error code (consider "type: ignore[return-value]" instead)  [ignore-without-code]
Found 1 error in 1 file (checked 1449 source files)

[datapythonista]

Thanks for clarifying @tqa236, I was checking the Code checks job in GitHub actions, I didn't see that. Good to see this simplified.

Looks good to me then, feel free to revert the errors.

[tqa236]

thanks for the review, @datapythonista, I reverted the last commit. The PR is ready.

[mroeschke]

Thanks again @tqa236

If interested, it would be great to see what ruff (pylint) checks are covered by what is run by pylint. It would be great if we could just switch over to ruff with most of the rules being covered

[tqa236]

@mroeschke I can look into it. Do you mind if I bump ruff to the latest version? A lot of new pylint rules are added recently, but I was trying to avoid creating conflict with your work in #56863

[mroeschke]

Do you mind if I bump ruff to the latest version?

Go for it. I am happy to keep that branch updated with whatever changes you make