(🎁) new rule: unconditional-break/unconditional-continue within loop

[KotlinIsland]

for a in [1, 2, 3]:
    print(a)
    break  # error: unconditional-break

The break here is completely invalid and is most certainly a developer mistake.

[charliermarsh]

It makes sense, though my concern is that the rule may have low precision. It's probably not a very common error, and when it does appear in code, I can see situations in which it may be intentional. For example:

for a in some_list():
  use_the_first_element(a)
  break

I guess you could do this by slicing, or with next, but I'm worried that we'll find other such patterns that won't outweigh the usefulness.

[dosisod]

For reference this is covered by FURB133 in Refurb (see #1348). FURB133 only covers continue though, whereas this would cover break as well. I'd agree that break changes the control flow (and may be intentional), whereas continue is harmless to remove.

I would say that a single continue at the end of a short for loop is not very useful to detect. But, if there is an if/else statement at the end of a for loop, the continue might go unnoticed. The test data for FURB133 gives some examples of continue statements that may go unnoticed.