[flake8-use-pathlib] Make fixes unsafe when types change in compound statements (PTH104, PTH105, PTH109, PTH115)

[chirizxc]

Summary

Fixes #21794

Test Plan

cargo nextest run flake8_use_pathlib

[astral-sh-bot]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

ℹ️ ecosystem check detected linter changes. (+0 -0 violations, +0 -26 fixes in 3 projects; 52 projects unchanged)

apache/airflow (+0 -0 violations, +0 -16 fixes)

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

- dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/minor_release_command.py:180:17: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/minor_release_command.py:180:17: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
- dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_candidate_command.py:719:25: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_candidate_command.py:719:25: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
- dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_command.py:123:23: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_command.py:123:23: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
- dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_command.py:156:23: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_command.py:156:23: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
- dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_command.py:177:19: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_command.py:177:19: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
- dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_command.py:387:25: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_command.py:387:25: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
- dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_command.py:403:19: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/commands/release_command.py:403:19: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
- dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/utils/reproducible.py:61:21: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/utils/reproducible.py:61:21: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`

bokeh/bokeh (+0 -0 violations, +0 -8 fixes)

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

- src/bokeh/application/handlers/code_runner.py:219:16: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ src/bokeh/application/handlers/code_runner.py:219:16: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
- src/bokeh/util/compiler.py:246:20: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ src/bokeh/util/compiler.py:246:20: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
- tests/support/util/filesystem.py:160:11: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ tests/support/util/filesystem.py:160:11: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
- tests/unit/bokeh/application/handlers/test_code_runner.py:154:19: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ tests/unit/bokeh/application/handlers/test_code_runner.py:154:19: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`

latchbio/latch (+0 -0 violations, +0 -2 fixes)

ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --no-fix --output-format concise --preview

- src/latch_cli/snakemake/serialize.py:152:25: PTH109 [*] `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`
+ src/latch_cli/snakemake/serialize.py:152:25: PTH109 `os.getcwd()` should be replaced by `Path.cwd()`

Changes by rule (1 rules affected)

code	total	+ violation	- violation	+ fix	- fix
PTH109	26	0	0	0	26

[ntBre]

Thanks for working on this! But I think we need to be a bit more careful here.

[ntBre]

Thanks for the quick fix! I think the logic here is good to go, I just had one small suggestion about combining the two helper functions.

[chirizxc]

Thanks for the quick fix! I think the logic here is good to go, I just had one small suggestion about combining the two helper functions.

Yes, I think it makes sense to combine them.

[ntBre]

Thank you!