Solve ruff issue non-augmented assignment

[berland]

Issue
Resolves ruff issue on non-augmented assignment

Approach
ruff check --unsafe-fixes --fix ., 👀

• PR title captures the intent of the changes, and is fitting for release notes.
• Added appropriate release note label
• Commit history is consistent and clean, in line with the contribution guidelines.
• Make sure tests pass locally (after every commit!)

When applicable

• When there are user facing changes: Updated documentation
• New behavior or changes to existing untested code: Ensured that unit tests are added (See Ground Rules).
• Large PR: Prepare changes in small commits for more convenient review
• Bug fix: Add regression test for the bug
• Bug fix: Create Backport PR to latest release

[berland]

non-augmented-assignment (PLR6104)

Derived from the Pylint linter.

Fix is always available.

This rule is in preview and is not stable. The --preview flag is required for use.

What it does

Checks for assignments that can be replaced with augmented assignment
statements.

Why is this bad?

If an assignment statement consists of a binary operation in which one
operand is the same as the assignment target, it can be rewritten as an
augmented assignment. For example, x = x + 1 can be rewritten as
x += 1.

When performing such an operation, augmented assignments are more concise
and idiomatic.

Known problems

In some cases, this rule will not detect assignments in which the target
is on the right-hand side of a binary operation (e.g., x = y + x, as
opposed to x = x + y), as such operations are not commutative for
certain data types, like strings.

For example, x = "prefix-" + x is not equivalent to x += "prefix-",
while x = 1 + x is equivalent to x += 1.

If the type of the left-hand side cannot be inferred trivially, the rule
will ignore the assignment.

Example

x = x + 1

Use instead:

x += 1

Fix safety

This rule's fix is marked as unsafe, as augmented assignments have
different semantics when the target is a mutable data type, like a list or
dictionary.

For example, consider the following:

foo = [1]
bar = foo
foo = foo + [2]
assert (foo, bar) == ([1, 2], [1])

If the assignment is replaced with an augmented assignment, the update
operation will apply to both foo and bar, as they refer to the same
object:

foo = [1]
bar = foo
foo += [2]
assert (foo, bar) == ([1, 2], [1, 2])

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.94%. Comparing base (6be9385) to head (f942034).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8296      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.92%   86.94%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         375      375              
  Lines       23523    23523              
  Branches      624      636      +12     
==========================================
+ Hits        20448    20452       +4     
+ Misses       2999     2998       -1     
+ Partials       76       73       -3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[JHolba]

Nice changes.
The comment listing pitfalls was excellent :)