Unnecessary indexing checker tests

[rachelzUT]

Proposed Changes

(Describe your changes here. Also describe the motivation for your changes: what problem do they solve, or how do they improve the application or codebase? If this pull request fixes an open issue, use a keyword to link this pull request to the issue.)

Added test cases for unnecessary_indexing_checker.py, specifically improving the test coverage of the _iterable_if_range helper function (lines 83 and 87).

...

Screenshots of your changes (if applicable)

Type of Change

(Write an X or a brief description next to the type or types that best describe your changes.)

Type	Applies?
🚨 Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
✨ New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
🐛 Bug fix (non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
♻️ Refactoring (internal change to codebase, without changing functionality)
🚦 Test update (change that only adds or modifies tests)	X
📚 Documentation update (change that only updates documentation)
📦 Dependency update (change that updates a dependency)
🔧 Internal (change that only affects developers or continuous integration)

Checklist

(Complete each of the following items for your pull request. Indicate that you have completed an item by changing the [ ] into a [x] in the raw text, or by clicking on the checkbox in the rendered description on GitHub.)

Before opening your pull request:

• I have performed a self-review of my changes.
  • Check that all changed files included in this pull request are intentional changes.
  • Check that all changes are relevant to the purpose of this pull request, as described above.
• I have added tests for my changes, if applicable.
  • This is required for all bug fixes and new features.
• I have updated the project documentation, if applicable.
  • This is required for new features.
• I have updated the project Changelog (this is required for all changes).
• If this is my first contribution, I have added myself to the list of contributors.

After opening your pull request:

• I have verified that the CI tests have passed.
• I have reviewed the test coverage changes reported by Coveralls.
• I have requested a review from a project maintainer.

Questions and Comments

(Include any questions or comments you have regarding your changes.)

[coveralls]

Coverage Report for CI Build 25700934777

Coverage increased (+0.05%) to 90.075%

Details

• Coverage increased (+0.05%) from the base build.
• Patch coverage: No coverable lines changed in this PR.
• No coverage regressions found.

Uncovered Changes

No uncovered changes found.

Coverage Regressions

No coverage regressions found.

---

Coverage Stats

Relevant Lines:	3879
Covered Lines:	3494
Line Coverage:	90.07%
Coverage Strength:	17.47 hits per line

---

💛 - Coveralls

[david-yz-liu]

Nice work, @rachelzUT. You've covered the lines that were missing, but I think you can go even further and add additional test cases to verify each part of the compound if conditions. For example, for the condition if not isinstance(arg1, nodes.Const) or arg1.value != 0, you've added a check for when arg1.value != 0, but not for the isinstance(arg1, nodes.Const). The same is true for the other condition.