[pylint] Add PLE1141 DictIterMissingItems#9845
Conversation
|
Could it be that the main branch on your fork is behind the main branch on this repository? IOW, can you try rebasing your branch with the latest changes on main? |
fca109e to
2e496dc
Compare
|
@dhruvmanila A rebase did not seem to fix the issue. The edit of the comment is still the same. I don't see how this PR could have that ecosystem impact without any test related to these messages failing? |
Yeah, don't worry about the ecosystem results. |
9ddbc95 to
698c2e4
Compare
|
Thanks for the feedback @dhruvmanila. I force pushed as I made a |
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #9845 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
|
Hi, @charliermarsh is there anything I can do to move this PR forward? |
|
I think it's good to go. I'll merge it but feel free to review it and I can make any follow-up changes @charliermarsh |
DictIterMissingItemspylint] Add PLE1141 DictIterMissingItems
|
Thanks @dhruvmanila. |
## Summary References astral-sh#970. Implements [`dict-iter-missing-items`](https://pylint.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_guide/messages/error/dict-iter-missing-items.html). Took the tests from "upstream" [here](https://github.com/DanielNoord/pylint/blob/main/tests/functional/d/dict_iter_missing_items.py). ~I wasn't able to implement code for one false positive, but it is pretty estoric: pylint-dev/pylint#3283. I would personally argue that adding this check as preview rule without supporting this specific use case is fine. I did add a "test" for it.~ This was implemented. ## Test Plan Followed the Contributing guide to create tests, hopefully I didn't miss any. Also ran CI on my own fork and seemed to be all okay 😄 ~Edit: the ecosystem check seems a bit all over the place? 😅~ All good. --------- Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
Summary
References #970.
Implements
dict-iter-missing-items.Took the tests from "upstream" here.
I wasn't able to implement code for one false positive, but it is pretty estoric: pylint-dev/pylint#3283. I would personally argue that adding this check as preview rule without supporting this specific use case is fine. I did add a "test" for it.This was implemented.Test Plan
Followed the Contributing guide to create tests, hopefully I didn't miss any.
Also ran CI on my own fork and seemed to be all okay 😄
Edit: the ecosystem check seems a bit all over the place? 😅All good.