[refurb] Stabilize fix safety for readlines-in-for (FURB129)

[dylwil3]

Note that the preview behavior was not documented (shame on us!) so the documentation was not modified.

[dylwil3]

Unrelated to the main change: just noticed this was missing a PR link and the prefix is_. This also accounts for the change in flake8_simplify/rules/ast_with.rs

[github-actions]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

ℹ️ ecosystem check detected linter changes. (+0 -0 violations, +10 -0 fixes in 1 projects; 54 projects unchanged)

apache/airflow (+0 -0 violations, +10 -0 fixes)

ruff check --no-cache --exit-zero --ignore RUF9 --no-fix --output-format concise --no-preview --select ALL

- dev/airflow_perf/sql_queries.py:145:41: FURB129 Instead of calling `readlines()`, iterate over file object directly
+ dev/airflow_perf/sql_queries.py:145:41: FURB129 [*] Instead of calling `readlines()`, iterate over file object directly
- dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/global_constants.py:555:21: FURB129 Instead of calling `readlines()`, iterate over file object directly
+ dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/global_constants.py:555:21: FURB129 [*] Instead of calling `readlines()`, iterate over file object directly
- devel-common/src/sphinx_exts/redirects.py:44:21: FURB129 Instead of calling `readlines()`, iterate over file object directly
+ devel-common/src/sphinx_exts/redirects.py:44:21: FURB129 [*] Instead of calling `readlines()`, iterate over file object directly
- providers/google/tests/system/google/cloud/gcs/resources/transform_script.py:26:39: FURB129 Instead of calling `readlines()`, iterate over file object directly
+ providers/google/tests/system/google/cloud/gcs/resources/transform_script.py:26:39: FURB129 [*] Instead of calling `readlines()`, iterate over file object directly
- scripts/ci/pre_commit/newsfragments.py:36:43: FURB129 Instead of calling `readlines()`, iterate over file object directly
+ scripts/ci/pre_commit/newsfragments.py:36:43: FURB129 [*] Instead of calling `readlines()`, iterate over file object directly

Changes by rule (1 rules affected)

code	total	+ violation	- violation	+ fix	- fix
FURB129	10	0	0	10	0

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

[dylwil3]

Ecosystem check looks good to me!

[ntBre]

LGTM, thanks!

Will you add these to the PR summary as you merge them? I'm also a bit paranoid about last time. What do you think about building up a Python code block and ruff invocation in the PR summary that makes sure that everything we stabilized makes it into the release? I'm picturing something like this for this case:

with open("file.txt") as fp:
    for line in fp.readlines():  # FURB129
        ...

ruff check example.py --no-cache \
    --select FURB129 # room for more \  --select ... later

[dylwil3]

Sounds good! We may need multiple code blocks in the end because for some stabilized behvaiors the file name matters (e.g. one of the behaviors cares whether the file is __init__.py).