<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! To help us out with reviewing, please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This PR implements formatting for non-f-string Strings that do not use implicit concatenation.
Docstring formatting is out of the scope of this PR.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I added a few tests for simple string literals.
## Performance
Ouch. This is hitting performance somewhat hard. This is probably because we now iterate each string a couple of times:
1. To detect if it is an implicit string continuation
2. To detect if the string contains any new lines
3. To detect the preferred quote
4. To normalize the string
Edit: I integrated the detection of newlines into the preferred quote detection so that we only iterate the string three time.
We can probably do better by merging the implicit string continuation with the quote detection and new line detection by iterating till the end of the string part and returning the offset. We then use our simple tokenizer to skip over any comments or whitespace until we find the first non trivia token. From there we keep continue doing this in a loop until we reach the end o the string. I'll leave this improvement for later.
This solves an instability when formatting cpython. It also introduces
another one, but i think it's still a worthwhile change for now.
There's no proper testing since this is just a dummy.
This formats slice expressions and subscript expressions.
Spaces around the colons follows the same rules as black
(https://black.readthedocs.io/en/stable/the_black_code_style/current_style.html#slices):
```python
e00 = "e"[:]
e01 = "e"[:1]
e02 = "e"[: a()]
e10 = "e"[1:]
e11 = "e"[1:1]
e12 = "e"[1 : a()]
e20 = "e"[a() :]
e21 = "e"[a() : 1]
e22 = "e"[a() : a()]
e200 = "e"[a() : :]
e201 = "e"[a() :: 1]
e202 = "e"[a() :: a()]
e210 = "e"[a() : 1 :]
```
Comment placement is different due to our very different infrastructure.
If we have explicit bounds (e.g. `x[1:2]`) all comments get assigned as
leading or trailing to the bound expression. If a bound is missing
`[:]`, comments get marked as dangling and placed in the same section as
they were originally in:
```python
x = "x"[ # a
# b
: # c
# d
]
```
to
```python
x = "x"[
# a
# b
:
# c
# d
]
```
Except for the potential trailing end-of-line comments, all comments get
formatted on their own line. This can be improved by keeping end-of-line
comments after the opening bracket or after a colon as such but the
changes were already complex enough.
I added tests for comment placement and spaces.
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! To help us out with reviewing, please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This PR adds basic formatting for unary expressions.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I added a new `unary.py` with custom test cases
This implements formatting ExprTuple, including magic trailing comma. I
intentionally didn't change the settings mechanism but just added a
dummy global const flag.
Besides the snapshots, I added custom breaking/joining tests and a
deeply nested test case. The diffs look better than previously, proper
black compatibility depends on parentheses handling.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
* A basic StmtAssign formatter and better dummies for expressions
The goal of this PR was formatting StmtAssign since many nodes in the black tests (and in python in general) are after an assignment. This caused unstable formatting: The spacing of power op spacing depends on the type of the two involved expressions, but each expression was formatted as dummy string and re-parsed as a ExprName, so in the second round the different rules of ExprName were applied, causing unstable formatting.
This PR does not necessarily bring us closer to black's style, but it unlocks a good porting of black's test suite and is a basis for implementing the Expr nodes.
* fmt
* Review
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! To help us out with reviewing, please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This PR replaces the `verbatim_text` builder with a `not_yet_implemented` builder that emits `NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_<NodeKind>` for not yet implemented nodes.
The motivation for this change is that partially formatting compound statements can result in incorrectly indented code, which is a syntax error:
```python
def func_no_args():
a; b; c
if True: raise RuntimeError
if False: ...
for i in range(10):
print(i)
continue
```
Get's reformatted to
```python
def func_no_args():
a; b; c
if True: raise RuntimeError
if False: ...
for i in range(10):
print(i)
continue
```
because our formatter does not yet support `for` statements and just inserts the text from the source.
## Downsides
Using an identifier will not work in all situations. For example, an identifier is invalid in an `Arguments ` position. That's why I kept `verbatim_text` around and e.g. use it in the `Arguments` formatting logic where incorrect indentations are impossible (to my knowledge). Meaning, `verbatim_text` we can opt in to `verbatim_text` when we want to iterate quickly on nodes that we don't want to provide a full implementation yet and using an identifier would be invalid.
## Upsides
Running this on main discovered stability issues with the newline handling that were previously "hidden" because of the verbatim formatting. I guess that's an upside :)
## Test Plan
None?
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff! To help us out with reviewing, please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title?
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
This issue fixes the removal of empty lines between a leading comment and the previous statement:
```python
a = 20
# leading comment
b = 10
```
Ruff removed the empty line between `a` and `b` because:
* The leading comments formatting does not preserve leading newlines (to avoid adding new lines at the top of a body)
* The `JoinNodesBuilder` counted the lines before `b`, which is 1 -> Doesn't insert a new line
This is fixed by changing the `JoinNodesBuilder` to count the lines instead *after* the last node. This correctly gives 1, and the `# leading comment` will insert the empty lines between any other leading comment or the node.
## Test Plan
I added a new test for empty lines.
* Add Format for Stmt
* Implement basic module formatting
This implements formatting each statement in a module with a hard line break in between, so that we can start formatting statements.
Basic testing is done by the snapshots
* Use dummy verbatim formatter for all nodes
* Use new formatter infrastructure in CLI and test
* Expose the new formatter in the CLI
* Merge import blocks
This just re-formats all the `.py.expect` files with Black, both to add a trailing newline and be doubly-certain that they're correctly formatted.
I also ensured that we add a hard line break after each statement, and that we avoid including an extra newline in the generated Markdown (since the code should contain the exact expected newlines).
This PR changes the testing infrastructure to run all black tests and:
* Pass if Ruff and Black generate the same formatting
* Fail and write a markdown snapshot that shows the input code, the differences between Black and Ruff, Ruffs output, and Blacks output
This is achieved by introducing a new `fixture` macro (open to better name suggestions) that "duplicates" the attributed test for every file that matches the specified glob pattern. Creating a new test for each file over having a test that iterates over all files has the advantage that you can run a single test, and that test failures indicate which case is failing.
The `fixture` macro also makes it straightforward to e.g. setup our own spec tests that test very specific formatting by creating a new folder and use insta to assert the formatted output.
