Create rule S7524 async for should be used with asynchronous iterators in async functions
#5116
Conversation
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
…tors in `async` functions
ghislainpiot
force-pushed
the
rule/add-RSPEC-S7524
branch
from
2a099cc to
2b398e9
Compare
ghislainpiot
changed the title
async for should be used with asynchronous iterators in async functions
rules/S7524/python/rule.adoc
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ | |||
| This rule raises an issue when a synchronous `for` loop is used with an iterator implementing both synchronous and asynchronous iteration protocols. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a bit confused why here (and throughout the rule description), we are focusing on iterators implementing both sync/async protocols.
I kind of expected a similar wording as S7515, where the message would be "if the iterator is async and we're in an async function, you should use the async protocol", no matter whether both protocols are implemented or not.
Here it seems we are saying that async for should be used even outside of async functions, which doesn't feel right (to be fair, we mention async functions in the "How to fix it" tab, but it's a bit late IMO).
rules/S7524/python/rule.adoc
Outdated
|
|
||
| === Message | ||
|
|
||
| Use 'async for' to iterate over dual-protocol iterators in 'async' functions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really need to focus on dual protocol iterators as well?
I guess using a simple for on an async iterator in an async function should be enough to raise, no? No need to ensure the iterator is dual? (I guess the "dual" part might influence whether we have a bug or a code smell, but that's it?).
|
I have reworded closer to S7515 |
rules/S7524/python/metadata.json
Outdated
| "tags": [ | ||
| "async" | ||
| ], | ||
| "defaultSeverity": "Major", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think with Low the severity should be Minor
|
|
You can preview this rule here (updated a few minutes after each push).
Review
A dedicated reviewer checked the rule description successfully for: