RUF052 Fix Breaks Overload Definitions

[oguzhanmeteozturk]

The automatic fix for RUF052 introduces inconsistent parameter renaming in overload definitions. Specifically, if a parameter name is prefixed with an underscore (e.g., _param), the fixer renames it inconsistently across overloads and the main function. This leads to invalid overload definitions, as parameter names must match exactly between overloads and the implementation.

@overload
def func(
    tp: str, value: object, /, *, strict: bool = True, eval: bool = True, _param: str = "func"
) -> bool: ...

@overload
def func(
    tp: type[_T], value: object, /, *, strict: bool = True, eval: bool = True, _param: str = "func"
) -> _T | None: ...

def func(
    tp: str | type[_T] | object, value: object,  /, *, strict: bool = True, eval: bool = True, param: str = "func" 
) -> _T | object | None: ...

I am not fully up to date on the process or discussions around RUF052, but given the potential for these changes to render code invalid, I wonder why wasn’t this fix categorized as an unsafe fix requiring explicit user consent in the first place?

[MichaReiser]

Thanks. Marking the fix as unsafe is a good first step if the binding belongs to a function parameter.

[MichaReiser]

Related to #14790 and #14796