ruff/crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/refurb/FURB103.py
Alex Waygood f779babc5f
Improve handling of builtin symbols in linter rules (#10919)
Add a new method to the semantic model to simplify and improve the correctness of a common pattern
2024-04-16 11:37:31 +01:00

147 lines
3.2 KiB
Python

def foo():
...
def bar(x):
...
# Errors.
# FURB103
with open("file.txt", "w") as f:
f.write("test")
# FURB103
with open("file.txt", "wb") as f:
f.write(foobar)
# FURB103
with open("file.txt", mode="wb") as f:
f.write(b"abc")
# FURB103
with open("file.txt", "w", encoding="utf8") as f:
f.write(foobar)
# FURB103
with open("file.txt", "w", errors="ignore") as f:
f.write(foobar)
# FURB103
with open("file.txt", mode="w") as f:
f.write(foobar)
# FURB103
with open(foo(), "wb") as f:
# The body of `with` is non-trivial, but the recommendation holds.
bar("pre")
f.write(bar())
bar("post")
print("Done")
# FURB103
with open("a.txt", "w") as a, open("b.txt", "wb") as b:
a.write(x)
b.write(y)
# FURB103
with foo() as a, open("file.txt", "w") as b, foo() as c:
# We have other things in here, multiple with items, but the user
# writes a single time to file and that bit they can replace.
bar(a)
b.write(bar(bar(a + x)))
bar(c)
# FURB103
with open("file.txt", "w", newline="\r\n") as f:
f.write(foobar)
import builtins
# FURB103
with builtins.open("file.txt", "w", newline="\r\n") as f:
f.write(foobar)
from builtins import open as o
# FURB103
with o("file.txt", "w", newline="\r\n") as f:
f.write(foobar)
# Non-errors.
with open("file.txt", errors="ignore", mode="wb") as f:
# Path.write_bytes() does not support errors
f.write(foobar)
f2 = open("file2.txt", "w")
with open("file.txt", "w") as f:
f2.write(x)
# mode is dynamic
with open("file.txt", foo()) as f:
f.write(x)
# keyword mode is incorrect
with open("file.txt", mode="a+") as f:
f.write(x)
# enables line buffering, not supported in write_text()
with open("file.txt", buffering=1) as f:
f.write(x)
# dont mistake "newline" for "mode"
with open("file.txt", newline="wb") as f:
f.write(x)
# I guess we can possibly also report this case, but the question
# is why the user would put "w+" here in the first place.
with open("file.txt", "w+") as f:
f.write(x)
# Even though we write the whole file, we do other things.
with open("file.txt", "w") as f:
f.write(x)
f.seek(0)
x += f.read(100)
# This shouldn't error, since it could contain unsupported arguments, like `buffering`.
with open(*filename, mode="w") as f:
f.write(x)
# This shouldn't error, since it could contain unsupported arguments, like `buffering`.
with open(**kwargs) as f:
f.write(x)
# This shouldn't error, since it could contain unsupported arguments, like `buffering`.
with open("file.txt", **kwargs) as f:
f.write(x)
# This shouldn't error, since it could contain unsupported arguments, like `buffering`.
with open("file.txt", mode="w", **kwargs) as f:
f.write(x)
# This could error (but doesn't), since it can't contain unsupported arguments, like
# `buffering`.
with open(*filename, mode="w") as f:
f.write(x)
# This could error (but doesn't), since it can't contain unsupported arguments, like
# `buffering`.
with open(*filename, file="file.txt", mode="w") as f:
f.write(x)
# Loops imply multiple writes
with open("file.txt", "w") as f:
while x < 0:
f.write(foobar)
with open("file.txt", "w") as f:
for line in text:
f.write(line)