[ruff] Handle extra arguments to deque (RUF037)

[ntBre]

Summary

Fixes #18612 by:

• Bailing out without a fix in the case of *args, which I don't think we can fix reliably
• Using an Edit::deletion from remove_argument instead of an Edit::range_replacement in the presence of unrecognized keyword arguments

I thought we could always switch to the Edit::deletion approach initially, but it caused problems when maxlen was passed positionally, which we didn't have any existing tests for.

The replacement fix can easily delete comments, so I also marked the fix unsafe in these cases and updated the docs accordingly.

Test Plan

New test cases derived from the issue.

Stabilization

These are pretty significant changes, much like those to PYI059 in #18611 (and based a bit on the implementation there!), so I think it probably makes sense to un-stabilize this for the 0.12 release, but I'm open to other thoughts there.

[github-actions]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

[MichaReiser]

Very nit picky, but I think this is unsafe if the dict contains an iterable keyword. The same if there are any other keywords around:

>>> from collections import deque
>>> a = deque(iterable=[1, 2])
>>> list(a)
[1, 2]
>>> list(a)
KeyboardInterrupt
>>> a = deque([1], iterable=[1, 2])
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<python-input-6>", line 1, in <module>
    a = deque([1], iterable=[1, 2])
TypeError: argument for deque() given by name ('iterable') and position (1)

We should mark the fix as unsafe if there are any other arguments.

[ntBre]

Wow nice catch! I added this case:

def f():
    deque([], iterable=[])

and realized that I was mishandling the range passed to remove_argument because this was returning an Err! I was only passing the ArgOrKeyword::value not the whole ArgOrKeyword.

I fixed that, and then also marked the fix unsafe if we find an unrecognized number of arguments.