Address undesirable_function_linter() lints

[IndrajeetPatil]

No description provided.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1761 (7ed0535) into main (04eecd4) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 87.50%.

❗ Current head 7ed0535 differs from pull request most recent head 2def1c6. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2def1c6 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1761   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.87%   98.87%           
=======================================
  Files         109      109           
  Lines        4621     4624    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits         4569     4572    +3     
  Misses         52       52           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
R/utils.R	98.29% <75.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
R/lint.R	96.78% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
R/with.R	93.05% <100.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[AshesITR]

Just so I understand, this is to enable undesirable_function_linter() in .lintr_new?

If so, why not add it immediately?
IINM, it's currently disabled.

[IndrajeetPatil]

@AshesITR I was going to do this later in one go, but we can do this PR-by-PR.

I have updated .lintr_new.

[AshesITR]

What we did in the last cleanup was

1. add all linters to .lintr_new to ensure no new "dirty" code is produced and then
2. PR-by-PR fix one type of lints and add the fixed linter to .lintr.

[IndrajeetPatil]

Yeah, that's what I've also been doing, but wasn't sure if we want to continue to let .lintr_new diverge from .lintr.

At any rate, I have updated .lintr_new.

[AshesITR]

Let's file an issue for this cleanup and discuss first what .lintr_new, and eventually .lintr, should look like in the end.
Once we've settled on that, I think we can implement the necessary PRs with more confidence.

For this discussion, the current tally of lint_package(linters = linters_with_tags(NULL)) is probably a good starting point.

cc @MichaelChirico @jimhester

[IndrajeetPatil]

@AshesITR We need to clean these lints regardless of what we decide here. So instead of keeping this PR blocked, I'd suggest that I revert the change to .lintr_new, and we can address how it should be updated in a different PR.

The current PR will then be solely about address undesirable_function_linter() lints. WDYT?

[AshesITR]

SGTM. Should also revert the nolint comments then.

[AshesITR]

Waiting for reverts to .lintr_new and the # nolint: undesirable_function_linter. comments.
The rest is ready to approve.

[IndrajeetPatil]

Waiting for reverts to .lintr_new and the # nolint: undesirable_function_linter. comments.

Done!