<!--
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
Adds support for `PatternMatchMapping` -- i.e., cases like:
```python
match foo:
case {"a": 1, "b": 2, **rest}:
pass
```
Unfortunately, this node has _three_ kinds of dangling comments:
```python
{ # "open parenthesis comment"
key: pattern,
** # end-of-line "double star comment"
# own-line "double star comment"
rest # end-of-line "after rest comment"
# own-line "after rest comment"
}
```
Some of the complexity comes from the fact that in `**rest`, `rest` is
an _identifier_, not a node, so we have to handle comments _after_ it as
dangling on the enclosing node, rather than trailing on `**rest`. (We
could change the AST to use `PatternMatchAs` there, which would be more
permissive than the grammar but not totally crazy -- `PatternMatchAs` is
used elsewhere to mean "a single identifier".)
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6644.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR ensures that we handle bracketed comments on sequences, like `#
comment` here:
```python
match x:
case [ # comment
1, 2
]:
pass
```
The handling is very similar to other, similar nodes, except that we do
need some special logic to determine whether the sequence is
parenthesized, similar to our logic for tuples.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR fixes the duplicate-parenthesis problem that's visible in the
tests from https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/6799. The issue is
that we might have parentheses around the entire match-case pattern,
like in `(1)` here:
```python
match foo:
case (1):
y = 0
```
In this case, the inner expression (`1`) will _think_ it's
parenthesized, but we'll _also_ detect the parentheses at the case level
-- so they get rendered by the case, then again by the expression.
Instead, if we detect parentheses at the case level, we can force-off
the parentheses for the pattern using a design similar to the way we
handle parentheses on expressions.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6753.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This is effectively #6608, but with additional tests.
We aren't properly handling parenthesized patterns, but that needs to be
dealt with separately as it's somewhat involved.
Closes#6555
## Summary
Follows up on
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/6652#discussion_r1300871033 with
some modifications to the `PatternMatchAs` comment handling.
Specifically, any comments between the `as` and the end are now
formatted as dangling, and we now insert some newlines in the
appropriate places.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR adds formatting support for `MatchCase` node with subs for the
`Pattern`
nodes.
## Test Plan
Added test cases for case node handling with comments, newlines.
resolves: #6299
<!--
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?
