-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[flake8-bugbear] Catch yield in subexpressions (B901) (#14453) #15254
Open
kaspell
wants to merge
1
commit into
astral-sh:main
Choose a base branch
from
kaspell:refactor/b901_missing_yield_subexpressions
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+264
−22
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks. I think we can simplify the implementation a fair bit by implementing
Visitor
instead ofStatementVisitor
. The difference is thatVisitor
visits expressionos by default so that you don't have to write that code yourself. This also guarantees that we findyield
expressions in arbitary nested expressions.I also took a quick look at the upstream bugbear implementation and it simply skips over
ReturnStmts
(it never walks them, it only setsin_return
totrue
).The patch would roughly be
This patch goes beyond what bugbear does because bugbear only considers
yield
in expression statements. Doing exactly what bugbear wouldn't allow us to address the example raised in the issue.But I feel like I'm missing an important point because I also see that you added some special handling around
return
that goes beyond what the bugbear rule does. can you tell me more about the motivation for it?Note: The bugbear rule also skips this rule when:
This could be a nice addition but doesn't need to be part of this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I might have got a bit carried away there by trying to cover as many scenarios as I could think of instead of trying to match the bugbear behavior (to be honest, it only now occurred to me that that might have been the goal!). The idea was that a function returning a variable can be valid or invalid depending on what the variable holds, e.g.
which would then necessitate some inference on what it is that the function is returning. I can totally drop that part if it's preferable to as closely as possible match what bugbear does!
Ty for the suggestions and the tip on Visitor! I'll adjust the approach based on these examples, with now a better idea of the constraints involved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh I see, thanks. Covering assignments already means we go beyond what bugbear does. So just matching "bugbear" is a bit tricky 😅
@AlexWaygood what's your take on this?