Allow parenthesized implicitly concatenated strings inside calls, to be more compatible with Black.

[yilei]

Type of Changes

	Type
	🐛 Bug fix
✓	✨ New feature
	🔨 Refactoring
	📜 Docs

Description

For discussion in #8552.

Closes #8552

For reference, here is Black's preview style results with relevant usages: playground

Alternatively, we could add another option (default to keep the existing behavior) to silence parenthesized implicit-str-concat.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #8590 (a315e0c) into main (92485a3) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8590   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.84%   95.84%           
=======================================
  Files         173      173           
  Lines       18466    18492   +26     
=======================================
+ Hits        17698    17724   +26     
  Misses        768      768           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pylint/checkers/strings.py	94.14% <100.00%> (+0.37%)	⬆️

[DanielNoord]

@yilei I guess nobody has time to review this yet, but as a start could you look at the coverage issue? You seem to be missing a line.

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

Sorry to react only after I read the functional tests I was not understanding things properly before. I think I thought and started to create test case about this earlier but I lost the change when my hard drive crashed because I can't find the branch anymore. What I wanted to do at some point was to check problem on a single line even inside multiline:

print(
    "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, ""consectetur adipiscing elit,"  # [implicit-str-concat] (notice the "" before 'consectetur')
    "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit,"
    " sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore "
    "magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud "
    "exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea "
)

I.e. if the string concat happens on a single line then raise implicit-str-concat else do not raise. But the approach from the checker was to be changed completely for that to work (use token I think?). Let me know what you think :)

[yilei]

@DanielNoord The coverage issue should be addressed. The missed line was actually dead code that can't be reached.

@Pierre-Sassoulas Thanks for taking a look. If they are on the same line, implicit-str-concat is always raised even in a multi line case. I added your example as a test case. The checker is using tokens and checking token's line numbers. Or did I misunderstand something?

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

LGTM, thank you !

[jacobtylerwalls]

Thanks! I think this is ready to merge. I found some minor typos.

Finally, it would be worth removing the reference to this PR added in #8649 and just show beneath the example there how to rewrite it correctly (as black will do it, soon).

[github-actions]

🤖 According to the primer, this change has no effect on the checked open source code. 🤖🎉

This comment was generated for commit a315e0c