Refactoring¶

These checks ensure that you don’t have patterns that can be refactored.

There are so many ways of doing the same thing in Python. Here we collect know patterns that can be rewritten into much easier or just more pythonic version.

Summary¶

`UselessLoopElseViolation`	Forbids to use `else` without `break` in a loop.
`UselessFinallyViolation`	Forbids to use `finally` in `try` block without `except` block.
`SimplifiableIfViolation`	Forbids to have simplifiable `if` conditions.
`UselessReturningElseViolation`	Forbids to use useless `else` cases in returning functions.
`NegatedConditionsViolation`	Forbids to use negated conditions together with `else` clause.
`NestedTryViolation`	Forbids to use nested `try` blocks.
`UselessLambdaViolation`	Forbids to define useless proxy `lambda` expressions.
`UselessLenCompareViolation`	Forbids to have unpythonic zero-length compare.
`NotOperatorWithCompareViolation`	Forbids to use `not` with compare expressions.
`NestedTernaryViolation`	Forbids to nest ternary expressions in some places.
`WrongInCompareTypeViolation`	Forbids to use `in` with static containers except `set` nodes.
`UnmergedIsinstanceCallsViolation`	Forbids to multiple `isinstance` calls with the same variable.
`WrongIsinstanceWithTupleViolation`	Forbids to multiple `isinstance` calls with tuples of a single item.
`ImplicitElifViolation`	Forbids to have implicit `elif` conditions.
`ImplicitInConditionViolation`	Forbids to use multiple equality compare with the same variable name.
`OpenWithoutContextManagerViolation`	Forbids to use `open()` with a context manager.
`TypeCompareViolation`	Forbids to compare types with `type()` function.
`PointlessStarredViolation`	Forbids to have useless starred expressions.
`ImplicitEnumerateViolation`	Forbids to have implicit `enumerate()` calls.
`ImplicitSumViolation`	Forbids to have implicit `sum()` calls.
`FalsyConstantCompareViolation`	Forbids to compare with explicit falsy constants.
`WrongIsCompareViolation`	Forbids to compare values with constants using `is` or `is not`.

Refactoring opportunities¶

class UselessLoopElseViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use else without break in a loop.

We use the same logic for for and while loops.

Reasoning:: When there’s no break keyword in loop’s body it means that else will always be called. This rule will reduce complexity, improve readability, and protect from possible errors.
Solution:: Refactor your else case logic to be inside the loop’s body. Or right after it.

Example:

# Correct:
for letter in 'abc':
    if letter == 'b':
        break
else:
    print('"b" is not found')

for letter in 'abc':
    print(letter)
print('always called')

# Wrong:
for letter in 'abc':
    print(letter)
else:
    print('always called')

New in version 0.3.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found `else` in a loop without `break`'¶

code = 500¶

previous_codes = {436}¶

class UselessFinallyViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use finally in try block without except block.

Reasoning:: This rule will reduce complexity and improve readability.
Solution:: Refactor your try logic. Replace the try-finally statement with a with statement.

Example:

# Correct:
with open("filename") as f:
    f.write(...)

# Wrong:
try:
    f = open("filename")
    f.write(...)
finally:
    f.close()

New in version 0.3.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found `finally` in `try` block without `except`'¶

code = 501¶

previous_codes = {437}¶

class SimplifiableIfViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have simplifiable if conditions.

Reasoning:: This complex construction can cause frustration among other developers. It is longer, more verbose, and more complex.
Solution:: Use bool() to convert test values to boolean values. Or just leave it as it is in case when your test already returns a boolean value. Use can also use not keyword to switch boolean values.

Example:

# Correct:
my_bool = bool(some_call())
other_value = 8 if some_call() else None

# Wrong:
my_bool = True if some_call() else False

We only check if nodes where True and False values are used. We check both if nodes and if expressions.

New in version 0.7.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found simplifiable `if` condition'¶

code = 502¶

previous_codes = {451}¶

class UselessReturningElseViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use useless else cases in returning functions.

We check single if statements that all contain return or raise or break statements with this rule. We do not check if statements with elif cases.

Reasoning:: Using extra else creates a situation when the whole node could and should be dropped without any changes in logic. So, we prefer to have less code than more code.
Solution:: Remove useless else case.

Example:

# Correct:
def some_function():
    if some_call():
        return 'yeap'
    return 'nope'

# Wrong:
def some_function():
    if some_call():
        raise ValueError('yeap')
    else:
        raise ValueError('nope')

New in version 0.7.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found useless returning `else` statement'¶

code = 503¶

previous_codes = {457}¶

class NegatedConditionsViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use negated conditions together with else clause.

Reasoning:: It easier to read and name regular conditions. Not negated ones.
Solution:: Move actions from the negated if condition to the else condition.

Example:

# Correct:
if some == 1:
     ...
else:
     ...

if not some:
     ...

# Wrong:
if not some:
     ...
else:
     ...

New in version 0.8.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found negated condition'¶

code = 504¶

previous_codes = {463}¶

class NestedTryViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use nested try blocks.

Notice, we check all possible slots for try block: 1. the try block itself 2. all except cases 3. else case 4. and finally case

Reasoning:: Nesting try blocks indicates that something really bad happens to your logic. Why does it require two separate exception handlers? It is a perfect case to refactor your code.
Solution:: Collapse two exception handlers together. Or create a separate function that will handle this second nested case.

Example:

# Wrong:
try:
    try:
        ...
    except SomeException:
        ...
except SomeOtherException:
    ...

try:
    ...
except SomeOtherException:
    try:
        ...
    except SomeException:
        ...

New in version 0.8.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found nested `try` block'¶

code = 505¶

previous_codes = {464}¶

class UselessLambdaViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to define useless proxy lambda expressions.

Reasoning:: Sometimes developers tend to overuse lambda expressions and they wrap code that can be passed as is, without extra wrapping. The code without extra lambda is easier to read and is more performant.
Solution:: Remove wrapping lambda declaration, use just the internal function.

Example:

# Correct:
numbers = map(int, ['1', '2'])

# Wrong:
numbers = map(lambda string: int(string), ['1', '2'])

New in version 0.10.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found useless lambda declaration'¶

code = 506¶

previous_codes = {467}¶

class UselessLenCompareViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have unpythonic zero-length compare.

Note, that we allow to check arbitrary length, like len(arr) == 3.

Reasoning:: Python’s structures like dicts, lists, sets, and tuples all have __bool__ method to checks their length. So, there’s no point in wrapping them into len(...) and checking that it is bigger that 0 or less then 1, etc.
Solution:: Remove extra len() call.

Example:

# Correct:
if some_array or not other_array or len(third_array) == 1:
    ...

# Wrong:
if len(some_array) > 0 or len(other_array) < 1:
    ...

New in version 0.10.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found useless `len()` compare'¶

code = 507¶

previous_codes = {468}¶

class NotOperatorWithCompareViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use not with compare expressions.

Reasoning:: This version of not operator is unreadable.
Solution:: Refactor the expression without not operator. Change the compare signs.

Example:

# Correct:
if x <= 5:
    ...

# Wrong:
if not x > 5:
    ...

New in version 0.10.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found incorrect `not` with compare usage'¶

code = 508¶

previous_codes = {470}¶

class NestedTernaryViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to nest ternary expressions in some places.

Note, that we restrict to nest ternary expressions inside:

if conditions
boolean and binary operations like and or +
unary operators

Reasoning:: Nesting ternary in random places can lead to very hard debug and testing problems.
Solution:: Refactor the ternary expression to be either a new variable, or nested if statement, or a new function.

Example:

# Correct:
some = x if cond() else y

# Wrong:
if x if cond() else y:
    ...

New in version 0.10.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found incorrectly nested ternary'¶

code = 509¶

previous_codes = {472}¶

class WrongInCompareTypeViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use in with static containers except set nodes.

We enforce people to use sets as a static containers. You can also use variables, calls, methods, etc. Dynamic values are not checked.

Reasoning:: Using static list, tuple, or dict elements to check that some element is inside the container is a bad practice. Because we need to iterate all over the container to find the element. Sets are the best suit for this task. Moreover, it makes your code consistent.
Solution:: Use set elements or comprehensions to check that something is contained in a container.

Example:

# Correct:
print(needle in {'one', 'two'})

# Wrong:
print(needle in ['one', 'two'])

New in version 0.10.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found `in` used with a non-set container'¶

code = 510¶

previous_codes = {473}¶

class UnmergedIsinstanceCallsViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to multiple isinstance calls with the same variable.

Reasoning:: The best practice is to use isinstance with tuple as the second argument, instead of multiple conditions joined with or.
Solution:: Use tuple of types as the second argument.

Example:

# Correct:
isinstance(some, (int, float))

# Wrong:
isinstance(some, int) or isinstance(some, float)

New in version 0.10.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found separate `isinstance` calls that can be merged for: {0}'¶

code = 511¶

previous_codes = {474}¶

class WrongIsinstanceWithTupleViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to multiple isinstance calls with tuples of a single item.

Reasoning:: There’s no need to use tuples with single elements. You can use single variables or tuples with multiple elements.
Solution:: Use tuples with multiple elements or a single varaible.

Example:

# Correct:
isinstance(some, (int, float))
isisntance(some, int)

# Wrong:
isinstance(some, (int, ))

See: https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#isinstance

New in version 0.10.0.

Changed in version 0.11.0.

error_template = 'Found `isinstance` call with a single element tuple'¶

code = 512¶

previous_codes = {475}¶

class ImplicitElifViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.TokenizeViolation

Forbids to have implicit elif conditions.

Reasoning:: Nested if in else cases are bad for readability because of the nesting level.
Solution:: Use elif on the same level.

Example:

# Correct:
if some:
    ...
elif other:
    ...

# Wrong:
if some:
    ...
else:
    if other:
        ...

New in version 0.12.0.

error_template = 'Found implicit `elif` condition'¶

code = 513¶

class ImplicitInConditionViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use multiple equality compare with the same variable name.

Reasoning:: Using double+ equality compare with or or double+ non-equality compare with and indicates that you have implicit in or not in condition. It is just hidden from you.
Solution:: Refactor compares to use in or not in clauses.

Example:

# Correct:
print(some in {'first', 'second'})
print(some not in {'first', 'second'})

# Wrong:
print(some == 'first' or some == 'second')
print(some != 'first' and some != 'second')

New in version 0.10.0.

Changed in version 0.12.0.

code = 514¶

error_template = 'Found implicit `in` condition'¶

previous_codes = {336}¶

class OpenWithoutContextManagerViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to use open() with a context manager.

Reasoning:: When you open() something, you need to close it. When using a context manager - it is automatically done for you. When not using it - you might find yourself in a situation when file is not closed and is not accessable anymore.
Solution:: Refactor open() call to use with.

Example:

# Correct:
with open(filename) as file_obj:
    ...

# Wrong:
file_obj = open(filename)

New in version 0.12.0.

code = 515¶

error_template = 'Found `open()` used without a context manager'¶

class TypeCompareViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to compare types with type() function.

Reasoning:: When you compare types with type() function call it means that you break polymorphism and dissallow child classes of a node to work here. That’s incorrect.
Solution:: Use isinstance to compare types.

Example:

# Correct:
print(something, type(something))

# Wrong:
if type(something) == int:
    ...

New in version 0.12.0.

code = 516¶

error_template = 'Found `type()` used to compare types'¶

class PointlessStarredViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have useless starred expressions.

Reasoning:: Using starred expression with constants is useless. This piece of code can be rewritten to be flat. Eg.: print(*[1, 2, 3]) is print(1, 2, 3).
Solution:: Refactor your code not to use starred expressions with list, dict, tuple, and set constants. Use regular argument passing instead.

Example:

# Correct:
my_list = [1, 2, 3, *other_iterable]

# Wrong:
print(*[1, 2, 3], **{{}})

New in version 0.12.0.

code = 517¶

error_template = 'Found pointless starred expression'¶

class ImplicitEnumerateViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have implicit enumerate() calls.

Reasoning:: Using range(len(...)) is not pythonic. Python uses collection iterators, not index-based loops.
Solution:: Use enumerate(...) instead of range(len(...)).

Example:

# Correct:
for index, person in enumerate(people):
    ...

# Wrong:
for index in range(len(people)):
    ...

New in version 0.12.0.

code = 518¶

error_template = 'Found implicit `enumerate()` call'¶

class ImplicitSumViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to have implicit sum() calls.

When summing types different from numbers, you might need to provide the second argument to the sum function: sum([[1], [2], [3]], [])

You might also use str.join to join iterable of strings.

Reasoning:: Using for loops with += assign inside indicates that you iteratively sum things inside your collection. That’s what sum() builtin function does.
Solution:: Use sum(...) instead of a loop with += operation.

Example:

# Correct:
sum_result = sum(get_elements())

# Wrong:
sum_result = 0
for to_sum in get_elements():
    sum_result += to_sum

New in version 0.12.0.

code = 519¶

error_template = 'Found implicit `sum()` call'¶

class FalsyConstantCompareViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to compare with explicit falsy constants.

We allow to compare with falsy numbers, strings, booleans, None. We disallow complex constants like tuple, dicts, and lists.

Reasoning:: When comparing something with explicit falsy constants what we really mean is not something.
Solution:: Use not with your variable. Fix your data types.

Example:

# Correct:
if not my_check:
    ...

if some_other is None:
    ...

if some_num == 0:
    ...

# Wrong:
if my_check == []:
    ...

New in version 0.12.0.

code = 520¶

error_template = 'Found compare with falsy constant'¶

class WrongIsCompareViolation(node, text=None)[source]¶

Bases: wemake_python_styleguide.violations.base.ASTViolation

Forbids to compare values with constants using is or is not.

However, we allow to compare with None and booleans.

Reasoning:: is compares might not do what you want them to do. Firstly, they check for the same object, not equality. Secondly, they behave unexpectedly even with the simple values like 257.
Solution:: Use == to compare with constants.

Example:

# Correct:
if my_check == [1, 2, 3]:
    ...

# Wrong:
if my_check is [1, 2, 3]:
    ...

New in version 0.12.0.

code = 521¶

error_template = 'Found wrong `is` compare'¶

Refactoring¶

Summary¶

Refactoring opportunities¶

wemake-python-styleguide

Navigation

Links