redundant_self_in_closure rule can behave unexpectedly with withAnimation(_:_:)

[ski-u]

New Issue Checklist

• Updated SwiftLint to the latest version
• I searched for existing GitHub issues

Describe the bug

1. Run SwiftLint v0.52.0 to the following code, for example

import SwiftUI

struct SampleView: View {
    @State private var number = 0

    var body: some View {
        Text("Sample")
    }

    private func add(_ number: Int) {
        withAnimation {
            self.number = number
        }
    }
}

2. SwiftLint removed self and we have an error like ↓

Complete output when running SwiftLint, including the stack trace and command used

$ swiftlint lint --enable-all-rules --fix
Correcting Swift files in current working directory
Correcting 'Contents.swift' (1/1)
/Users/sakai.yunosuke/test/Contents.swift:12:13 Corrected Redundant Self in Closure
Done correcting 1 file!

Environment

• SwiftLint version (run swiftlint version to be sure)?: 0.52.0
• Installation method used (Homebrew, CocoaPods, building from source, etc)?: Homebrew
• Paste your configuration file: No configuration file
• Are you using nested configurations?: No
  If so, paste their relative paths and respective contents.
• Which Xcode version are you using (check xcodebuild -version)?: Xcode 14.3
• Do you have a sample that shows the issue? Run echo "[string here]" | swiftlint lint --no-cache --use-stdin --enable-all-rules
  to quickly test if your example is really demonstrating the issue. If your example is more
  complex, you can use swiftlint lint --path [file here] --no-cache --enable-all-rules.
  • I have an example in "Describe the bug" section above.

[SimplyDanny]

This is a known shortcoming of this rule that must generally be accepted, unfortunately. The reason is that normal SwiftLint rules only operate on the Swift AST without knowing anything about types.

However, as this case of updating state is quite common it seems reasonable to exclude simple assignments of the form self.x = x from being reported. There are still a lot of conceivable other cases that can not be recognized. So we have to expect and accept a certain amount of false positives in this rule.

[ski-u]

Thank you for your explanation and working to fix this!

[PauliusPetru]

maybe there is a rule to which asks for selfs? Like it was before 14.3 basically