PLC0206 diagnostic location is confusing

[oz123]

First it tells me no to use:

for key in dict:
      do_someting(key)

When I try dict.keys it still complains.
When I try `dict.item() and throw away value, it still complains:

oznt@dell-gentoo:/srv/oznt/Software/pypa/pipenv |pipenv-mRt4xz3R| [±|completely-remove-click-echo {2} U:3 ?:6 ✗|] $ruff check pipenv/routines/outdated.py 
pipenv/routines/outdated.py:50:23: PERF102 When using only the keys of a dict use the `keys()` method
   |
48 |     outdated = []
49 |     skipped = []
50 |     for package, _ in packages.items():
   |                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PERF102
51 |         norm_name = pep423_name(package)
52 |         if norm_name in updated_packages:
   |
   = help: Replace `.items()` with `.keys()`

Found 1 error.
No fixes available (1 hidden fix can be enabled with the `--unsafe-fixes` option).
oznt@dell-gentoo:/srv/oznt/Software/pypa/pipenv |pipenv-mRt4xz3R| [±|completely-remove-click-echo {2} U:3 ?:6 ✗|] $vim pipenv/routines/outdated.py 
oznt@dell-gentoo:/srv/oznt/Software/pypa/pipenv |pipenv-mRt4xz3R| [±|completely-remove-click-echo {2} U:3 ?:6 ✗|] $vim pipenv/routines/outdated.py 
oznt@dell-gentoo:/srv/oznt/Software/pypa/pipenv |pipenv-mRt4xz3R| [±|completely-remove-click-echo {2} U:2 ?:6 ✗|] $ruff check pipenv/routines/outdated.py 
pipenv/routines/outdated.py:50:5: PLC0206 Extracting value from dictionary without calling `.items()`
   |
48 |       outdated = []
49 |       skipped = []
50 |       for package in packages.keys():
   |  _____^
51 | |         norm_name = pep423_name(package)
52 | |         if norm_name in updated_packages:
53 | |             version = packages[package]
54 | |             if isinstance(version, Mapping):
55 | |                 version = parse_version(version.get("version", "").replace("==", ""))
56 | |             else:
57 | |                 version = parse_version(version.replace("==", ""))
58 | |             if updated_packages[norm_name] != version:
59 | |                 outdated.append(
60 | |                     package_info(package, str(version), str(updated_packages[norm_name]))
61 | |                 )
62 | |             elif canonicalize_name(package) in outdated_packages:
63 | |                 skipped.append(outdated_packages[canonicalize_name(package)])
   | |_____________________________________________________________________________^ PLC0206
64 |       for package, old_version, new_version in skipped:
65 |           for category in project.get_package_categories():
   |

Found 1 error.

I believe PLC0206 should not be raised if I use dict.keys()

[dylwil3]

Thanks for submitting this!

So I think that the error message is pointing to the wrong spot (which is confusing...), PLC0206 is complaning about this:

    if norm_name in updated_packages:
        version = packages[package]

So I think it would be compatible with both rules to do something more like:

diff --git a/tmp.py b/tmp2.py
index dfa6d6f..6975214 100644
--- a/tmp.py
+++ b/tmp2.py
@@ -1,9 +1,8 @@
 outdated = []
 skipped = []
-for package in packages.keys():
+for package, version in packages.items():
     norm_name = pep423_name(package)
     if norm_name in updated_packages:
-        version = packages[package]
         if isinstance(version, Mapping):
             version = parse_version(version.get("version", "").replace("==", ""))
         else:

But I can't quite tell from your code if you're trying to mutate the dictionary key at that point, in which case you'd have to do something else. (The above patch would also violate redefined-loop-name (PLW2901), so if that rule is also enabled you would have to name the loop variable something else).

[dylwil3]

I do think the error message being in the wrong spot is a bug though - we should fix that

[dylwil3]

I started looking into this and there's a bit of a design question: how should we handle multiple uses of the dictionary value inside the for-loop?

Some options:

1. Offer a separate diagnostic per violation, pointing to the location of the violation
2. Same as (1) but add a "parent" for each of these diagnostics at the start of the for-loop, so users can # noqa the whole block (I think that's how that would work?)
3. Overhaul the diagnostic infrastructure to allow displaying multiple ranges for a single diagnostic (I imagine this would be a last resort)
4. Keep it as-is
5. Something else

@AlexWaygood / @MichaReiser have y'all run into this issue before where you want to display multiple text ranges for a single diagnostic? Is there prior art?

[MichaReiser]

Changing the location is, unfortunately, a breaking change because it breaks all noqa comments. We should avoid changing the location more than once.

To me it's not clear what the right location should be but I'm leaning towards:

• Flagging the dictionary expression in in <dict> because the rule name and its description are both about dictionary iteration (and not *use of dict index in dictionary iteration)
• Flagging the in <dict> allows suppressing all usages with a single noqa comment

However, I can see how this isn't useful. That's why I'm leaning towards renaming and redefining the rule to flag the usages instead. Requiring multiple noqa comments would then be okay in my view because the rule reports the usages and not the for loop itself.