Improve for_where rule

[marcelofabri]

If the if is too complex, it's better to have it instead of a where clause.

Also, that bug that prevents us to recognize local variables sometimes makes the rule trigger false positives.

[keith]

I found a false positive for this rule as well:

for a in [1, 2, 3] {
    if a == 1 {
        return 0
    }

    return a
}

Here the a == 1 could not be added as a where since we still want to do something in the alternate case. A simple workaround for now:

for a in [1, 2, 3] {
    if a == 1 {
        return 0
    } else {
        return a
    }
}

[marcelofabri]

@keith Could you try running with #1393? I think that should fix the issue as well

[keith]

Trying!

[keith]

Confirmed! Thanks you beat me to it!!

[eaigner]

Another false positive

This rule should not apply if the if block returns.

[jpsim]

That's not a false positive, these are all equivalent:

private var allFilesExpanded: Bool {
    for index in visibleFileRowIndexes {
        if !visibleParts[index].isExpanded {
            return false
        }
    }
    return true
}

private var allFilesExpanded: Bool {
    for index in visibleFileRowIndexes where !visibleParts[index].isExpanded {
        return false
    }
    return true
}

and finally:

private var allFilesExpanded: Bool {
    return visibleFileRowIndexes.allSatisfy { visibleParts[$0].isExpanded }
}