FURB171 Does not trigger when calling set(...)

[naslundx]

Description

Minimal code snippet:

if 1 in {1}:  # This triggers
    print("Single-element set")

if 1 in set([1]):  # This does not, but is equivalent
    print("Single-element set")

Command:
ruff check --isolated testfile.py --select FURB171 --preview

No other settings.

Ruff version 0.9.3.

[InSyncWithFoo]

These two are not equivalent:

>>> set(1)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<python-input-0>", line 1, in <module>
    set(1)
    ~~~^^^
TypeError: 'int' object is not iterable

[naslundx]

Sorry about that. Edited the original post, it should be set([1]). Indeed:

>>> set([1]) == {1}
True

[dylwil3]

I'm not sure if the scope of the rule should be extended to include composite constructions of singleton collections. There would be a lot of special cases to consider and it's not clear to me how one would draw the line for what should or shouldn't be considered. Already in this case if we add set([1]) shouldn't we also add set("a") or set((1,))

[dylwil3]

I'm not sure if the scope of the rule should be extended to include composite constructions of singleton collections. There would be a lot of special cases to consider and it's not clear to me how one would draw the line for what should or shouldn't be considered. Already in this case if we add set([1]) shouldn't we also add set("a") or set((1,))

@AlexWaygood has convinced me that this extension in scope has more pros than cons - thanks for suggesting it, and sorry for delaying things a bit!