Fix false positive in PLR6301
#7933
Conversation
Don't report a diagnostic if the method contains a `super()` call.
| struct CallVisitor { | ||
| is_super: bool, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| impl<'a> Visitor<'a> for CallVisitor { | ||
| fn visit_expr(&mut self, expr: &'a Expr) { | ||
| match expr { | ||
| Expr::Call(ast::ExprCall { func, .. }) => match func.as_ref() { | ||
| Expr::Name(expr_name) => { | ||
| self.is_super = expr_name.id == "super"; | ||
| } | ||
| _ => { | ||
| visitor::walk_expr(self, expr); | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| _ => visitor::walk_expr(self, expr), | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ideally, it would be better to use the function scope to check if the method contains a super() call in the body, but the function scope only gives me access to its parameters. So when using scope.get("super") it would only return None.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It turns out that super is actually a global builtin in Python, so the usages we need are on the global scope. I tweaked the logic to use the technique you suggested above. I guess the downside is that we can't ensure that the super usage was on a super() call, but perhaps that's fine. (We don't store a NodeId on Reference, though we could in the future.)
PR Check ResultsEcosystem✅ ecosystem check detected no changes. |
charliermarsh
force-pushed
the
fix-PLR6301-false-positive
branch
from
aa8ff07 to
fe5f699
Compare
| return; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@LaBatata101 - What do you think of this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. Didn't know about the binding.references() function, will be very helpful when implementing other rules in the future.
Summary
Don't report a diagnostic if the method contains a
super()call.Closes #6961
Test Plan
cargo test