-
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
Closed
kaspell
wants to merge
5
commits into
astral-sh:main
from
kaspell:refactor/b901_missing_yield_subexpressions
+58
−25
Closed
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
6ca384a
[flake8-bugbear] Catch yield in subexpressions (B901) (#14453)
kaspell cc1eb7b
Refactor to account for subexpressions otherwise following bugbear
kaspell 0ffe2bd
Merge branch 'main' into refactor/b901_missing_yield_subexpressions
kaspell bbf79aa
Update B901 snapshots
kaspell a4b4184
Add comment for skipping assignments
kaspell 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?
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.
Alright, this time there should be subexpression traversal without otherwise straying too much from the bugbear implementation.
This seems to have required skipping assignment statements when searching for
yield
oryield from
expressions. Bugbear doesn't check for them either but this means that, for example, one of the functions raised in the original issue:isn't currently caught. This is because, without tracking the actual return values, I don't think there's a way to catch this while at the same time respecting some of the existing example functions, such as:
Aside from this, function call expressions are also ignored (which bugbear does as well). Again, without some stronger machinery, existing example functions such as
would fail. Let me know if these sound like good tradeoffs, or if you noticed something that I missed!
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.
These are great considerations! I'm somewhat inclined to leave the rule as is now, seeing that there are so many valid edge cases that I didn't consider, and re-visit the rule once we have a more precise type inference (to know if the returned value is a generator or not).
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.
Sure! That makes sense. Previously I tried to find something like that but didn't come across anything.
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 for being so understanding and I'm sorry that I incorrectly marked the issue as "good first issue" which it clearly wasn't.
Thanks again for your work. This was a great PR and you navigated the complexity well.
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.
Ty! Absolutely np, was fun to work on this regardless!