fix(linter/no-unused-private-class-members): correctly detect value context for private members in assignment expressions

[camc314]

fixes #15548

[camc314]

• fix(linter/no-unused-private-class-members): correctly detect value context for private members in assignment expressions #15553 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

---

How to use the Graphite Merge Queue

Add either label to this PR to merge it via the merge queue:

• 0-merge - adds this PR to the back of the merge queue
• hotfix - for urgent hot fixes, skip the queue and merge this PR next

You must have a Graphite account in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link.

An organization admin has enabled the Graphite Merge Queue in this repository.

Please do not merge from GitHub as this will restart CI on PRs being processed by the merge queue.

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR fixes issue #15548 where private class members used within logical or update expressions on the right-hand side of assignments were incorrectly flagged as unused.

Key changes:

• Modified is_value_context to accept both parent and child nodes, enabling proper detection of whether an expression is on the RHS of an assignment
• Added explicit handling for AssignmentExpression in is_value_context to check if the child is within the RHS
• Refactored variable names for improved clarity (e.g., parent_node → grandparent)

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[graphite-app]

Merge activity

• Nov 10, 1:53 PM UTC: camc314 added this pull request to the Graphite merge queue.
• Nov 10, 2:04 PM UTC: Merged by the Graphite merge queue.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #15553 will not alter performance

_{Comparing c/11-10-fix_linter_no-unused-private-class-members_correctly_detect_value_context_for_private_members_in_assignment_expressions (1b994d1) with main (4d71f45)¹}

Summary

✅ 4 untouched
⏩ 33 skipped²

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (1b994d1) during the generation of this report, so 4d71f45 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

2. 33 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩