SIM105: Replace try-except-pass blocks with the contextlib.suppress context manager

[seisman]

Description of proposed changes

Fix ruff SIM105 violations.

What it does

Checks for try-except-pass blocks that can be replaced with the contextlib.suppress context manager.

Why is this bad?

Using contextlib.suppress is more concise and directly communicates the intent of the code: to suppress a given exception.

Note that contextlib.suppress is slower than using try-except-pass directly. For performance-critical code, consider retaining the try-except-pass pattern.

Not sure why ruff doesn't catch these violations, but the codes look cleaner with contextlib.suppress.

[weiji14]

Not sure why ruff doesn't catch these violations, but the codes look cleaner with contextlib.suppress.

Looks the the SIM105 rule won't work with >1 line under the try: block, see astral-sh/ruff#8593. The idea I think is that if the 1st line fails, it's not so clear that the 2nd line wouldn't run if there is not an except: below it, see also rationale at astral-sh/ruff#1947.

[seisman]

The idea I think is that if the 1st line fails, it's not so clear that the 2nd line wouldn't run if there is not an except: below it, see also rationale at astral-sh/ruff#1947.

Makes sense. Closing the PR.