[pylint] Implement if-stmt-min-max (PLR1730, PLR1731)

[tibor-reiss]

Add rule consider-using-min-builtin (R1730) and consider-using-max-builtin (R1731)

See #970 for rules

Test Plan: cargo test

[github-actions]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

ℹ️ ecosystem check detected linter changes. (+77 -70 violations, +0 -0 fixes in 4 projects; 40 projects unchanged)

apache/airflow (+3 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --ignore RUF9 --output-format concise --preview --select ALL

+ airflow/cli/commands/kubernetes_command.py:84:5: PLR1730 [*] Replace `if` statement with `min_pending_minutes = min(min_pending_minutes, 5)`
+ airflow/models/taskinstance.py:2167:13: PLR1730 [*] Replace `if` statement with `min_backoff = min(min_backoff, 1)`
+ tests/cluster_policies/__init__.py:103:5: PLR1730 [*] Replace `if` statement with `max` call

milvus-io/pymilvus (+3 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --ignore RUF9 --output-format concise --preview

+ pymilvus/bulk_writer/buffer.py:234:13: PLR1730 [*] Replace `if` statement with `min` call
+ pymilvus/bulk_writer/buffer.py:236:13: PLR1730 [*] Replace `if` statement with `max` call
+ pymilvus/orm/iterator.py:54:9: PLR1730 [*] Replace `if` statement with `max` call

pandas-dev/pandas (+70 -70 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --ignore RUF9 --output-format concise --preview

+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1000:9: PLR6301 Method `test_frame_operators_none_to_nan` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1002:9: PLR6301 Method `test_frame_operators_none_to_nan` could be a function, class method, or static method
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1005:9: PLR6301 Method `test_frame_operators_empty_like` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1007:9: PLR6301 Method `test_frame_operators_empty_like` could be a function, class method, or static method
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1021:9: PLR6301 Method `test_series_operators_arithmetic` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1023:9: PLR6301 Method `test_series_operators_arithmetic` could be a function, class method, or static method
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1034:9: PLR6301 Method `test_series_operators_compare` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1036:9: PLR6301 Method `test_series_operators_compare` could be a function, class method, or static method
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1049:9: PLR6301 Method `test_divmod` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1051:9: PLR6301 Method `test_divmod` could be a function, class method, or static method
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1077:9: PLR6301 Method `test_series_divmod_zero` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1079:9: PLR6301 Method `test_series_divmod_zero` could be a function, class method, or static method
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1103:9: PLR6301 Method `test_ufunc_compat` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1105:9: PLR6301 Method `test_ufunc_compat` could be a function, class method, or static method
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1118:9: PLR6301 Method `test_ufunc_coercions` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1120:9: PLR6301 Method `test_ufunc_coercions` could be a function, class method, or static method
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1162:9: PLR6301 Method `test_ufunc_multiple_return_values` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1164:9: PLR6301 Method `test_ufunc_multiple_return_values` could be a function, class method, or static method
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1173:9: PLR6301 Method `test_ufunc_at` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1175:9: PLR6301 Method `test_ufunc_at` could be a function, class method, or static method
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1184:9: PLR6301 Method `test_numarr_with_dtype_add_nan` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1186:9: PLR6301 Method `test_numarr_with_dtype_add_nan` could be a function, class method, or static method
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1199:9: PLR6301 Method `test_numarr_with_dtype_add_int` could be a function, class method, or static method
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1201:9: PLR6301 Method `test_numarr_with_dtype_add_int` could be a function, class method, or static method
... 113 additional changes omitted for rule PLR6301
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1491:18: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1493:18: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
+ pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1493:19: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
- pandas/tests/arithmetic/test_numeric.py:1495:19: PLR6201 Use a `set` literal when testing for membership
... 112 additional changes omitted for project

rotki/rotki (+1 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --ignore RUF9 --output-format concise --preview

+ rotkehlchen/exchanges/bybit.py:403:13: PLR1730 [*] Replace `if` statement with `lower_ts = min(lower_ts, start_ts)`

Changes by rule (3 rules affected)

code	total	+ violation	- violation	+ fix	- fix
PLR6301	136	68	68	0	0
PLR1730	7	7	0	0	0
PLR6201	4	2	2	0	0

[tibor-reiss]

Hi @charliermarsh, some questions regarding this PR:

• min and max are 2 separate rules in pylint, so I implemented as such with their respective codes - looking at other similar rules this seems to be the standard for now. However, there is minimal difference between the 2 functions min_instead_of_if and max_instead_of_if. So I wonder if it would not be better to merge these 2 rules into one?
  - is there some simple general way of matching the "value" part in literals, i.e. ignoring the range field? E.g. I could not find any example so far for a simple comparison of two python constants.

[sbrugman]

Another related rule:
https://github.com/dosisod/refurb/blob/master/docs/checks.md#furb136-use-min-max

#1348 implemented as https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/if-expr-min-max/

[tibor-reiss]

@sbrugman While they look indeed similar, the implementation is quite different: FURB136 is for if expressions (in ruff it is ExprIfExp which is an Expr enum), whereas PLR1730 operates on if statements (in ruff it is StmtIf which is a Stmt enum).

[sbrugman]

I linked it as reference for the first point: here it is implemented as a single rule. Consistency with the upstream (mapping existing rules) takes precedence over internal consistency (merging rules that are minimally different) I suppose, so just for reference.

Nice work!

[tibor-reiss]

@sbrugman Thanks for clarifying, I misunderstood your original comment. I added now a commit which merges the 2 rules - I personally also prefer this over the duplication. @charliermarsh to decide if this is acceptable - i.e. dropping PLR1731 and just using PLR1730 for both min and max.

[sbrugman]

Sorry for the confusion, but I intended to say that the linked rule merged them at one, but since that pylint treats them as two for now the project prefers to match pylint (i.e. two rules). Anyway, indeed let the team decide on that

[tibor-reiss]

@sbrugman From the linked reference I found out that there is ComparableExpr - code looks a lot cleaner now. So thanks a lot for taking a look!

[MichaReiser]

The rule itself fits into ruff. It is similar to if-expr-min-max but we have other rules that capture the same problem but differ in the syntax.

I think we should align the name with if-expr-min-max -> if-stmt-min-max.

One thing that needs to be decided if this should be a single rule or if it's better to have two rules (to match py lint)

[charliermarsh]

I'm comfortable with a single rule here. Just seems unlikely that anyone would enable one but not the other, and it better aligns with if-expr-min-max. I'll rename and merge.