fix unsupported logging format check

[qequ]

Type of Changes

	Type
✓	🐛 Bug fix
	✨ New feature
	🔨 Refactoring
	📜 Docs

Description

This PR fixes a false positive in the logging-unsupported-format checker when logging statements contain format-like strings but no arguments are supplied.

Closes #10752

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.98%. Comparing base (6f7f8db) to head (3c1b8ec).
⚠️ Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #10758   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.98%   95.98%           
=======================================
  Files         176      176           
  Lines       19540    19561   +21     
=======================================
+ Hits        18755    18776   +21     
  Misses        785      785           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
pylint/checkers/logging.py	94.80% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[DanielNoord]

Could you add a functional test for this behaviour? :)

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

I think there's a decision to take here because 'fixing' this might make the checker useless (it won't detect % when one wanted to do %d or it won't detect %test). I.e. it's possible that this checker cannot work without some false positives. I was absolutely sure that the original issue was a duplicate but I haven't been able to find another issue talking about it (Maybe #9999 ?), so there's already a MR for this (which isn't nice if we're going to reject in the end)

[jacobtylerwalls]

@Pierre-Sassoulas I think treating %s differently from %foo as proposed makes sense. I didn't quite follow your doubt.

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

My point was that there's classes of issues that pylint won't warn about anymore, like missing specifier after a %, but I missed that there have to be two mistakes from the user for them to be an actual error, so I agree with you now.

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

@qequ sorry for the noise, do you mind adding functional test like Daniel suggested ?

[jacobtylerwalls]

Please write your tests in the existing style in test/functional, see https://pylint.readthedocs.io/en/latest/development_guide/contributor_guide/tests/writing_test.html#writing-functional-tests.

[github-actions]

🤖 According to the primer, this change has no effect on the checked open source code. 🤖🎉

This comment was generated for commit 3c1b8ec