[ruff] IO operations performed on closed IO objects (RUF061)

[InSyncWithFoo]

Summary

Resolves #10517.

RUF061 checks for references of IO objects whose binding is created by a with statement and reports if those references might trigger ValueError: I/O operation on closed file at runtime.

It recognizes the following patterns:

• Method references: f.read()/_ = f.write
• Contain checks: _ in f
• for loops: for _ in f: ...

Test Plan

cargo nextest run and cargo insta test.

[github-actions]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

ℹ️ ecosystem check detected linter changes. (+16 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes in 4 projects; 51 projects unchanged)

apache/airflow (+6 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

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

+ airflow/models/dagbag.py:319:17: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ airflow/utils/warnings.py:33:17: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ scripts/in_container/run_provider_yaml_files_check.py:223:17: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ scripts/in_container/run_provider_yaml_files_check.py:243:17: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ tests/core/test_configuration.py:1413:13: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ tests/sensors/test_external_task_sensor.py:155:13: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object

pandas-dev/pandas (+1 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

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

+ pandas/util/_exceptions.py:93:13: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object

zulip/zulip (+3 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

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

+ zerver/tests/test_message_edit.py:59:13: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ zerver/tests/test_message_fetch.py:4134:13: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ zerver/tests/test_message_send.py:2346:13: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object

astropy/astropy (+6 -0 violations, +0 -0 fixes)

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

+ astropy/io/ascii/ui.py:1103:9: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ astropy/io/ascii/ui.py:1104:9: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ astropy/io/fits/scripts/fitscheck.py:184:9: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ astropy/utils/tests/test_data.py:1083:9: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ astropy/wcs/tests/test_profiling.py:74:9: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object
+ astropy/wcs/tests/test_utils.py:808:13: RUF061 IO operation performed on closed IO object

Changes by rule (1 rules affected)

code	total	+ violation	- violation	+ fix	- fix
RUF061	16	16	0	0	0

[InSyncWithFoo]

There are a lot of false positives of this kind:

with open() as f:
	f.read()  # A reference to the next `f`

with open() as f:  # Same name
	...

with open() as f:  # Same name
	f.write()  # A reference to either of the previous `f`s

This seems to be a bug in the semantic model rather than a problem with this rule.