Merged
Conversation
srittau
approved these changes
Apr 1, 2025
mmingyu
pushed a commit
to mmingyu/typeshed
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Ref #13295
Rules: Pylint Warning (PLW)
Having all 4 Pylint-based groups enabled slightly simplifies the selection to
PLsubprocess-run-without-check (PLW1510) is the rule that asks for an explicit
check=param tosubprocess.run(might be good to also validate whether some of those calls should check the result).redefined-loop-name (PLW2901) disallows overwriting a loop variable with an assignement.
Can catch some good code smells, but what it caught here feels quite pedantic. Maybe we could feature-request an exception for immediatly-reassigned loop variables? (which also feels cleaner than an additional comprehension/map)