[pylint] Redefined outer names (PLW0621)
#15903
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
That's weird. I'm pretty sure tests did pass when I wrote them two weeks ago. |
InSyncWithFoo
force-pushed
the
RUF059
branch
from
6b7c034 to
a043bb8
Compare
|
| code | total | + violation | - violation | + fix | - fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLW0621 | 6440 | 6440 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| D415 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| DOC201 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| ANN201 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| D400 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| D103 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| D202 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
InSyncWithFoo
force-pushed
the
RUF059
branch
from
a043bb8 to
0784de9
Compare
|
Many of the violations look like this, where all a = 0
def foo(a):
...
def v():
foo(a)I'm in favor of reporting them, since such a parameter is unnecessary anyway, but the message/rule documentation could probably be improved to avoid potential confusion. |
dhruvmanila
added
rule
|
Would you mind explaining what makes this rule a partial implementation of I don't think we should merge this as a ruff rule right now. It seems too opinionated. I'm okay to accept this as a pylint rule (if it is semantically close/the same) |
|
(
|
|
Thanks for the extra context. I don't think we should add a rule as a RUF rule that actually is a pylint rule that we later have to recode if it implements the full scope of the upstream rule. Especially if we don't understand what the differences are. I recommend to:
|
InSyncWithFoo
force-pushed
the
RUF059
branch
from
e99f284 to
384bd65
Compare
InSyncWithFoo
changed the title
ruff] Overshadowing parameters (RUF059)pylint] Redefined outer names (PLW0621)
|
Would you mind listing the differences to the upstream rule? Or do we still not know? |
InSyncWithFoo
force-pushed
the
RUF059
branch
from
1921f6a to
7412149
Compare
|
@MichaReiser The upstream rule also reports variables and seems to have something to do with except handlers. Whatever I could make out of it I have already incorporated into the code. Due to some reason, |
InSyncWithFoo
force-pushed
the
RUF059
branch
from
5dcd87c to
e392ebd
Compare
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Part of #970 and #3040.
This partial implementation of
W0621reports parameters that overshadow a variable from an outer scope. Pytest (yield) fixtures are exempted from the rule.The error message was taken from that of the upstream rule.
Test Plan
cargo nextest runandcargo insta test.