[pylint] Implement consider-using-assignment-expr (R6103)
#13196
+486
−2
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
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #13196 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
vincevannoort
changed the title
R6103R6103
vincevannoort
force-pushed
the
consider-using-assignment-expr
branch
from
b422d5c
to
dbefe63
Compare
|
| code | total | + violation | - violation | + fix | - fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLR6103 | 5110 | 5110 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
vincevannoort
force-pushed
the
consider-using-assignment-expr
branch
from
84c2180
to
4d891db
Compare
vincevannoort
commented
Sep 6, 2024
Comment on lines
+1134
to
+1136
| if checker.enabled(Rule::UnnecessaryAssignment) { | ||
| pylint::rules::unnecessary_assignment(checker, if_); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I applied this rule by checking whether the previous statement from a IfStmt is an AssignStmt, however I am wondering if it is more desirable to do check if the next statement of a AssignStmt is an IfStmt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What benefits do you see in testing the next statement after an AssignStmt.
My intuition here is that there are probably more assignment than if statements. Therefore, running the rules on if nodes might overall be faster?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that assignments are far more common than if statements.
I think the answer depends on the costs for checking previous_statement and next_statement.
My thought here is that retrieving the previous statement using the newly added previous_statement might be more expensive because it has to iterate over all previous statements using previous_statements to find the previous statement (if there is a better way, please let me know).
While checking an assignment, then checking the next_statement might be a cheap operation.
Do you have any idea? If they have equal cost I think the current implementation is fine. 😄
vincevannoort
changed the title
R6103consider-using-assignment-expr (R6103)
vincevannoort
changed the title
consider-using-assignment-expr (R6103)consider-using-assignment-expr (R6103)
vincevannoort
commented
Sep 7, 2024
Comment on lines
+1250
to
+1252
| pub fn previous_statement(&self, stmt: &'a Stmt) -> Option<&Stmt> { | ||
| self.previous_statements(stmt)?.next() | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I needed something like this function, not sure if there is an existing better way?
vincevannoort
force-pushed
the
consider-using-assignment-expr
branch
from
07d2997
to
964c3d6
Compare
sbrugman
reviewed
Sep 8, 2024
sbrugman
reviewed
Sep 8, 2024
MichaReiser
added
rule
MichaReiser
requested changes
Sep 8, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for this contribution. My plane is about to land. I've to finish the review at a later time.
I only had enough time to quickly glance over the Rust code. We should look into removing the many node.clone() calls because it is fairly expensive to clone nodes and probably unnecessary. Let me know if you need some guidance on how to remove the clone calls (It probably requires adding some lifetimes)
Regarding the rule's naming.
- I did a quick search to see how we referred to
:=in other rules. There are not many usages butnamed expression (walrus operator)is the most common form. - The rule name seems too generic to me and its name is very similar to
unnecessary-assign(which we should rename to `unnecessary-assignment). Reading through the examples the rule mainly is about assigning a value that is then only used in an if condition. I need to think a bit more about what a good rule name could be. Maybe you have an idea?
Comment on lines
+19
to
+30
| bad5 = ( | ||
| 'example', | ||
| 'example', | ||
| 'example', | ||
| 'example', | ||
| 'example', | ||
| 'example', | ||
| 'example', | ||
| 'example', | ||
| 'example', | ||
| 'example', | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the example because it shows a potentially controversial use case. I would probably prefer the assignment to keep the if smaller.
crates/ruff_linter/resources/test/fixtures/pylint/unnecessary_assignment.py
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Comment on lines
+1134
to
+1136
| if checker.enabled(Rule::UnnecessaryAssignment) { | ||
| pylint::rules::unnecessary_assignment(checker, if_); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What benefits do you see in testing the next statement after an AssignStmt.
My intuition here is that there are probably more assignment than if statements. Therefore, running the rules on if nodes might overall be faster?
crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pylint/rules/unnecessary_assignment.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pylint/rules/unnecessary_assignment.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Thanks for the review, much appreciated! 👍
I have tried and was able to remove almost all clone calls, except a few which I think are needed for returning the diagnostic. Could you take a look at the remaining ones and see if any of the 3 can still be removed?
I agree, here are some possible options:
These seem close to what the lint is trying to prevent, do you have other ideas in mind? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in 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
This pull request implements the
R6103pylint rule: pylint documentation.It checks assignments which are directly followed by if statements using that expression:
And suggest to use the
:=operator toTest Plan
I have added test cases, and checked some of the
ruff ecosystemresults.