C2801 False positive when __setitem__ appears in a lambda

[asarkar]

Bug description

I have a function that accepts a lambda as follows:

zigzag(
        encoded_message,
        num_rails,
        lambda i, _: rail_lengths.__setitem__(i, rail_lengths[i] + 1)
)

pylint generates an error:

C2801: Unnecessarily calls dunder method __setitem__. Set item via subscript. (unnecessary-dunder-call)

But assignment isn’t valid in a lambda, so, the suggestion is incorrect.

Configuration

No response

Command used

pylint \
  --score n \
  --ignore-paths '^.*_test.py$' \
  --disable C0103,C0104,C0114,C0115,C0116 \
  "$basedir"/**/*.py

Pylint output

C2801: Unnecessarily calls dunder method __setitem__. Set item via subscript. (unnecessary-dunder-call)

Expected behavior

No error.

Pylint version

pylint 2.17.4
Python 3.11.3

OS / Environment

No response

Additional dependencies

No response

[jacobtylerwalls]

Ouch, sorry, that was your original report.

I see now:

>>> lamb = lambda x: x[1] = 2
  File "<stdin>", line 1
    lamb = lambda x: x[1] = 2
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: cannot assign to lambda

Thanks for the report!

[badsketch]

Hey, I'd like to take a stab at this 🙂

First time contributing to pylint, so looking for some advice. I think I have an idea on how to modify checkers/dunder_methods.py to ignore cases when inside a lambda, but I'm stuck on how to test and verify to get it PR ready.

1. In some cases like lamb = lambda x: x.__gt__(3), we do want it to raise a flag. Should I create a functional test that goes through all possible dunder methods to verify there aren't false negatives?
2. Generally, I was going to add logic to traverse a dunder's parent node until it encounters a Lambda node (so it can be ignored). Say, a dunder method node is a very far ancestor of a lambda (Don't even think this is possible, but hang on).

<Lambda>
   <something>
     <somethinga>
     <somethingb>
          .
          .
          <dunder_method>

Do I need to prove using the official Python grammar, that intermediate nodes (something1,2,3 etc.) would still make this C2801 exception valid? Having a hard time considering all the sheer possibilities of exceptions of this exceptions.

Hope I'm making sense, thanks!

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

Should I create a functional test that goes through all possible dunder methods to verify there aren't false negatives?

Sounds great (but "all" might be hard to reach :) ). There's probably already functional tests with a lot of cases, search for # [unnecessary-dunder-call] in the tests directory.

Do I need to prove using the official Python grammar, that intermediate nodes (something1,2,3 etc.) would still make this C2801 exception valid?

Theoretically yes as long as astroid is not properly typed, but let's start by opening a merge request and seeing how it goes in the primer (new code run on major open source projects). We generally only deal with what is usually used in python not code that is correct python but actually never used by anyone.

[jacobtylerwalls]

Generally, I was going to add logic to traverse a dunder's parent node until it encounters a Lambda node

Be sure to evaluate if you can use existing utils like get_node_first_ancestor_of_type() instead of adding new logic.

Thanks for the help!

[asarkar]

OP here. I think the fix shouldn’t exclude just any dunder method, but only those with side effects. In the Python world, those are probably those that return None. For example, a call to __hash__ should still be a violation.