Aleksei Latyshev dd0ba16a79 [refurb] Implement readlines_in_for lint (FURB129) (#9880) ... ## Summary Implement [implicit readlines (FURB129)](https://github.com/dosisod/refurb/blob/master/refurb/checks/iterable/implicit_readlines.py) lint. ## Notes I need a help/an opinion about suggested implementations. This implementation differs from the original one from `refurb` in the following way. This implementation checks syntactically the call of the method with the name `readlines()` inside `for` {loop|generator expression}. The implementation from refurb also [checks](https://github.com/dosisod/refurb/blob/master/refurb/checks/iterable/implicit_readlines.py#L43) that callee is a variable with a type `io.TextIOWrapper` or `io.BufferedReader`. - I do not see a simple way to implement the same logic. - The best I can have is something like ```rust checker.semantic().binding(checker.semantic().resolve_name(attr_expr.value.as_name_expr()?)?).statement(checker.semantic()) ``` and analyze cases. But this will be not about types, but about guessing the type by assignment (or with) expression. - Also this logic has several false negatives, when the callee is not a variable, but the result of function call (e.g. `open(...)`). - On the other side, maybe it is good to lint this on other things, where this suggestion is not safe, and push the developers to change their interfaces to be less surprising, comparing with the standard library. - Anyway while the current implementation has false-positives (I mentioned some of them in the test) I marked the fixes to be unsafe.		2024-02-12 22:28:35 -05:00
..
src	[refurb] Implement readlines_in_for lint (FURB129) (#9880)	2024-02-12 22:28:35 -05:00
Cargo.toml	Run doctests as part of CI pipeline (#9939)	2024-02-12 10:18:58 +01:00