[flake8-simplify] Fix truthiness assumption for non-iterable arguments in tuple/list/set calls (SIM222, SIM223)

[danparizher]

Summary

Fixes false positives in SIM222 and SIM223 where truthiness was incorrectly assumed for tuple(x), list(x), set(x) when x is not iterable.

Fixes #21473.

Problem

Truthiness::from_expr recursively called itself on arguments to iterable initializers (tuple, list, set) without checking if the argument is iterable, causing false positives for cases like tuple(0) or True and tuple("") or True.

Approach

Added is_definitely_not_iterable helper and updated Truthiness::from_expr to return Unknown for non-iterable arguments (numbers, booleans, None) and string literals when called with iterable initializers, preventing incorrect truthiness assumptions.

Test Plan

Added test cases to SIM222.py and SIM223.py for tuple(""), tuple(0), tuple(1), tuple(False), and tuple(None) with or True and and False patterns.

[astral-sh-bot]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Formatter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no format changes.

Formatter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no format changes.

[MichaReiser]

Thanks, @danparizher, for this PR. It's great to see how you jump on every Ruff issue. We appreciate your contributions greatly, and you're very productive. You're that productive that it is challenging for us to keep up with the number of PRs you submit; it can sometimes even feel a bit overwhelming to see 5 new PRs.

That's why I'd like to ask you to give us some time to catch up. I think an ideal contribution experience for us (you as a contributor and we as a reviewer) would be to aim for a low one-digit number of open PRs that we aim to land before starting any new ones. That gives us the necessary time to properly review your PRs, as well as those from other contributors.

I hope you won't receive this as discouraging because we really value your contributions and we would love to see more of them, maybe just have them a little more spaces out so that we can keep up :)

[danparizher]

I'm not sure why this ruff::cli analyze_graph test is failing, I don't believe my changes are related to it.

Thanks so much for the kind words @MichaReiser! No worries at all, I completely get it—sorry for the PR flood! "Overzealous contributor" is probably a fitting title; I just get excited about Ruff 😄

I'll throttle back and stick to just a couple of open PRs at a time. I totally respect the need to keep the review pipeline manageable for you all and appreciate the heads-up!