I ran into one of these from LGTM, and it would be nice if pylint could
warn me as part of my local development process instead of waiting for
the CI to tell me.
This caught a couple of cases of us doing:
```python
for i in range(len(x)):
v = x[i]
```
which are places to use enumerate instead.
It also caught a couple of cases of:
```python
assert len(x) == len(y)
for i in range(len(x)):
xv = x[i]
yv = y[i]
```
Which should instead be using zip()
```python
for xv, yv in zip(x, y):
...
```
This didn't actually catch what it's supposed to, which is cases of:
```python
for x in dict.keys():
y = dict[x]
```
But it did catch one unnecessary use of keys(), and one case where we
were doing something in an inefficient way. I've rewritten:
```python
if name.value in [x.value for x in self.kwargs.keys() if isinstance(x, IdNode)]:
```
as
``python
if any((isinstance(x, IdNode) and name.value == x.value) for x in self.kwargs):
```
Which avoids doing two iterations, one to build the list, and a
second to do a search for name.value in said list, which does a single
short circuiting walk, as any returns as soon as one check returns True.
The last instances of
try:
...
except:
...
were removed in bf98ffca. The sideci.yml file was updated, but the
flake8 config still allows this. Ensure that flake8 tests fail if this
questionable construct appears again.
We're using these now, so having some error checking to make sure we
don't have paths were we're trying to instantiate an abstract class
would be good.
This catches some very real errors.
The one in scalapack is pretty silly actually, it's failing to figure
out that the exploded list is at least two arguments. However, the code
is actually clearer by not using a list and exploding it, so I've done
that and pylint is happy too.
Dylan Baker