E712: auto-fix disagrees with suggested fix in output for equality comparisons to bools

[The-Compiler]

Summary

With (playground):

flag = True

if flag == True:
    pass

if flag == False:
    pass

running ruff check suggests:

$ ruff check --unsafe-fixes ruff_demo.py
ruff_demo.py:3:4: E712 [*] Avoid equality comparisons to `True`; use `if flag:` for truth checks
  [...]
  = help: Replace with `flag`

ruff_demo.py:6:4: E712 [*] Avoid equality comparisons to `False`; use `if not flag:` for false checks
  [...]
  = help: Replace with `not flag`

but ruff check --fix --unsafe-fixes results in a different result than what the output suggests, and code that is still unidiomatic:

flag = True

if flag is True:
    pass

if flag is False:
    pass

while I would have expected

flag = True

if flag:
    pass

if not flag:
    pass

instead. Of course those aren't equivalent in all cases if flag wasn't a bool, but the fix is already unsafe anyways, so it might as well end up with the more idiomatic result if manual review is required.

Somewhat related:

• Fix (E712) changing ==/!= to is/is not is not correct for some types #4560

but once such type-specific fixing exists, the behavior could be improved accordingly:

optional_flag: bool | None = False
if optional_flag == False: ...  # -->
if optional_flag is False: ...

flag: bool = False
if flag == False:  ...  # -->
if not flag: ...

Version

ruff 0.11.2 (4773878 2025-03-21)

[knavdeep152002]

I want to take this up, but I have a few doubts about it.

Is the equality comparison to bool only fixed to a single operation like flag==True, flag==False or can it be something like flag==True < 5(weird but possible)?

The second expression is also valid, but if we convert it to flag < 5 it's not the right equivalent to the prior rather flag is True < 5 might make sense.

So should the fix be supported to a single operator case?