Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.30%. Comparing base (8e19277) to head (66a4007).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2786   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.30%   93.30%           
=======================================
  Files          91       91           
  Lines       11083    11091    +8     
=======================================
+ Hits        10341    10349    +8     
  Misses        742      742           

Thank you for the merge request. Are pylint and Ruff disagreeing about next ? It seems making pylint happy makes Ruff sad. Maybe there's another way to make pylint happy, I'm on mobile so I was not able to check the pipeline for the commit where pylint is sad.

The issue is following code:

        eg = list(
            node_classes.unpack_infer(
                extract_node(
                    """
from builtins import ExceptionGroup
ExceptionGroup
"""
                )
            )
        )[0]

ruff does not like list with zero index, it prefers next() (RUF015). On the other hand pylint does not like next() version:

        eg = next(
            node_classes.unpack_infer(
                extract_node(
                    """
from builtins import ExceptionGroup
ExceptionGroup
"""
                )
            )
        )

without handled StopIteration exception (stop-iteration-return).

If I understand code correctly, it is guaranteed that at least one item is returned by unpack_infer() hence I propose to use next() version of the code and disable stop-iteration-return. Let me know if you agree.

EDIT: Or we can add assertion:

try:
    ...
except StopIteration:
   assert False, "Should not happen"

Let's noqa pylint

Sure, I was simply waiting for another opinion :)

Thnx! I put autocomplete but I expected that it will be merged when both reviewers will approve 😅

It's okay and I had added a thumbsups on your answer too