[refurb] Add coverage for using set(...) in single-item-membership-test (FURB171)
#15793
Conversation
naslundx
force-pushed
the
single-item-membership-test-missing-set-constructor
branch
from
77168c6 to
781af24
Compare
|
| code | total | + violation | - violation | + fix | - fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FURB171 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
Ah, I see, it doesn't work if the single argument to |
| if 1 in set(1): | ||
| print("Single-element set") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, this fails at runtime:
>>> set(1)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<python-input-0>", line 1, in <module>
set(1)
~~~^^^
TypeError: 'int' object is not iterable| if 1 in set(1, 2): | ||
| pass |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this also fails at runtime:
>>> set(1, 2)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<python-input-1>", line 1, in <module>
set(1, 2)
~~~^^^^^^
TypeError: set expected at most 1 argument, got 2
|
To clarify, @naslundx, all of these succeed at runtime, and I'd be okay with adding support for these to set([1])
set((1,))
set({1})You'd need to check that the object being passed to the |
Additionally, that element should be literal/hashable, so that errors like this one are not masked: if a in set([{}]): ... # TypeError: unhashable type: 'dict'
if a == {}: ... # No errors |
I think we should open a separate issue about this because that behavior is already present in the current scope of the rule: 1 in {set()} # TypeError: unhashable type: 'set'
1 == set() # No errors |
dylwil3
added
rule
dylwil3
changed the title
refurb] Add coverage for using set(...) in single-item-membership-test (FURB171)
|
Maybe check for frozenset([1])
frozenset((1,))
frozenset({1}) |
Summary
Adds coverage of using
set(...)in addition to `{...} in SingleItemMembershipTest.Fixes #15792
Test Plan
Updated unit test and snapshot.
Steps to reproduce are in the issue linked above.