No rule for sequential `write` calls (`for-loop-writes (FURB122)]` matches loops only) despite claiming `writelines` is more idiomatic

[Avasam]

Summary

for-loop-writes (FURB122) says

When writing a batch of elements, it's more idiomatic to use a single method call to IOBase.writelines, rather than write elements one by one.

That rule checks for write in loop, but sequential write calls, which match the exact same reasoning, are not flagged.

Given the following example, should either cases be caught?

import pathlib

# from
def foo(fname: str) -> None:
    with pathlib.Path(fname).open("w", encoding="utf-8") as output:
        output.write("a\n")
        output.write("b\n")
        output.write("c\n")
        for subtitle, suffix in (
            ("Overviews", "_overview"),
            ("Modules", "_modules"),
            ("Objects", "_objects"),
        ):
            output.write(f"{suffix} {subtitle}\n")
        output.write("d\n")

# to
def foo(fname: str) -> None:
    with pathlib.Path(fname).open("w", encoding="utf-8") as output:
        output.writelines(("a\n", "b\n", "c\n"))
        output.writelines(
            f"{suffix} {subtitle}\n"
            for subtitle, suffix in (
                ("Overviews", "_overview"),
                ("Modules", "_modules"),
                ("Objects", "_objects"),
            )
        )
        output.write("d\n")

# or even, if we take collection-literal-concatenation (RUF005) into account
def foo(fname: str) -> None:
    with pathlib.Path(fname).open("w", encoding="utf-8") as output:
        output.writelines(
            [
                "a\n",
                "b\n",
                "c\n",
                *[
                    f"{suffix} {subtitle}\n"
                    for subtitle, suffix in (
                        ("Overviews", "_overview"),
                        ("Modules", "_modules"),
                        ("Objects", "_objects"),
                    )
                ],
                "d\n",
            ]
        )

Playground: https://play.ruff.rs/18194c34-af39-462b-9633-0c0af9281da8

---

Or is maybe the description is not quite correct and

When writing a batch of elements [...]

is missing the specifier "already in iterable format (list, tuple, etc)".

For instance, I doubt that, in my case with a generator/list expression, that passing that to writelines is really that much better, especially if the implementation of writelines is just to loop over lines. I end up double looping.