Remove a branch from main() to pass Ruff CI check.

[korverdev]

It appears that a recent update to Ruff has resulted in master failing the CI Ruff check. Resolves #2960.

[DimitriPapadopoulos]

I would rather find a way to shut up this ruff warning in the main function.

I don't find this specific warning very useful when parsing command line options.

[DimitriPapadopoulos]

Besides, this is clearly a ruff shortcoming. You are not reducing the number of ifs, just fooling ruff into not seeing one of them.

[korverdev]

A few alternatives for this:

• Silence the check for main().
• Increase the limit here.
• Disable the check entirely.

[korverdev]

Although, as an aside, I think Ruff not recognizing these as branches is actually "correct" behavior. Conditional assignment is functionally very close to a ternary operator and languages with the latter usually don't regard that as a branch. It's ultimately down to the tool to decide this, but Ruff actually calls this syntax a "ternary operator" rather than a branch in it's own documentation. In the example I changed above, Ruff considers this to remove two branches, leaving you at an end count of 47.

[larsoner]

This could be equivalently expressed more compactly like this but what you have is fine, too

Suggested change

	dictionaries = options.dictionary if options.dictionary else ["-"]
	dictionaries = options.dictionary or ["-"]

[korverdev]

Good to know! Haven't seen that syntax before.

[larsoner]

Good enough I think, thanks @korverdev !

@DimitriPapadopoulos we might indeed need to quiet ruff a bit but at least for now we can avoid it :)

[DimitriPapadopoulos]

Regarding the distinction between ternary operators better and branches, I fail to see why ternary operators would be OK and branches would not be OK.

Modifying code snippets that work just to work around ruff issues looks like a bad idea to me, but so be it.