Apply infer_kwarg_from_call() to more checks
#8775
Conversation
These mostly solve false negatives for various checks, save for one false positive for `use-maxsplit-arg`. Closes pylint-dev#7761
| @@ -2228,6 +2230,13 @@ def _check_unnecessary_list_index_lookup( | |||
| # is not redundant, hence we should not report an error. | |||
| return | |||
|
|
|||
| # Preserve preliminary_confidence if it was INFERENCE | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not terribly important, but maybe someday a merge_confidence() helper would be a usability win.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about a __add__ ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should just wait for #7121, when we might have a numeric level we can just compare directly.
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #8775 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.83% 95.83%
=======================================
Files 173 173
Lines 18451 18459 +8
=======================================
+ Hits 17683 17691 +8
Misses 768 768
|
| try: | ||
| iterable_arg = utils.get_argument_from_call( | ||
| node.iter, position=0, keyword="iterable" | ||
| ) | ||
| except utils.NoSuchArgumentError: | ||
| return | ||
| iterable_arg = utils.infer_kwarg_from_call(node.iter, keyword="iterable") | ||
| preliminary_confidence = INFERENCE |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At this point it's not preliminary anymore so it c/sould be named confidence ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is preliminary if the second one turns out to be CONTROL_FLOW, was my thought. But then I should change the second condition to != HIGH.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, that's not quite right either. I guess I'd rather keep preliminary for now.
| @@ -2228,6 +2230,13 @@ def _check_unnecessary_list_index_lookup( | |||
| # is not redundant, hence we should not report an error. | |||
| return | |||
|
|
|||
| # Preserve preliminary_confidence if it was INFERENCE | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about a __add__ ?
|
Thanks for the review! |
Closes #7761
Type of Changes
Description
Follow-up to #8728, which created
infer_kwarg_from_call(). I looked for other places we should use to close #7761.These mostly solve false negatives for various checks, save for one false positive for
use-maxsplit-arg. Not worth pulling it out to backport.I did open a separate issue for #8774, though, because it's a crash fix we could backport.
Closes #7761