This PR splits the string formatting code in the formatter to be handled
by the respective nodes.
Previously, the string formatting was done through a single
`FormatString` interface. Now, the nodes themselves are responsible for
formatting.
The following changes were made:
1. Remove `StringLayout::ImplicitStringConcatenationInBinaryLike` and
inline the call to `FormatStringContinuation`. After the refactor, the
binary like formatting would delegate to `FormatString` which would then
delegate to `FormatStringContinuation`. This removes the intermediary
steps.
2. Add formatter implementation for `FStringPart` which delegates it to
the respective string literal or f-string node.
3. Add `ExprStringLiteralKind` which is either `String` or `Docstring`.
If it's a docstring variant, then the string expression would not be
implicitly concatenated. This is guaranteed by the
`DocstringStmt::try_from_expression` constructor.
4. Add `StringLiteralKind` which is either a `String`, `Docstring` or
`InImplicitlyConcatenatedFString`. The last variant is for when the
string literal is implicitly concatenated with an f-string (`"foo" f"bar
{x}"`).
5. Remove `FormatString`.
6. Extract the f-string quote detection as a standalone function which
is public to the crate. This is used to detect the quote to be used for
an f-string at the expression level (`ExprFString` or
`FormatStringContinuation`).
### Formatter ecosystem result
**This PR**
| project | similarity index | total files | changed files |
|----------------|------------------:|------------------:|------------------:|
| cpython | 0.75804 | 1799 | 1648 |
| django | 0.99984 | 2772 | 34 |
| home-assistant | 0.99955 | 10596 | 214 |
| poetry | 0.99905 | 321 | 15 |
| transformers | 0.99967 | 2657 | 324 |
| twine | 1.00000 | 33 | 0 |
| typeshed | 0.99980 | 3669 | 18 |
| warehouse | 0.99976 | 654 | 14 |
| zulip | 0.99958 | 1459 | 36 |
**main**
| project | similarity index | total files | changed files |
|----------------|------------------:|------------------:|------------------:|
| cpython | 0.75804 | 1799 | 1648 |
| django | 0.99984 | 2772 | 34 |
| home-assistant | 0.99955 | 10596 | 214 |
| poetry | 0.99905 | 321 | 15 |
| transformers | 0.99967 | 2657 | 324 |
| twine | 1.00000 | 33 | 0 |
| typeshed | 0.99980 | 3669 | 18 |
| warehouse | 0.99976 | 654 | 14 |
| zulip | 0.99958 | 1459 | 36 |
This fixes a bug where the current indent level was not calculated
correctly for doctests. Namely, it didn't account for the extra indent
level (in terms of ASCII spaces) used by by the PS1 (`>>> `) and PS2
(`... `) prompts. As a result, lines could extend up to 4 spaces beyond
the configured line length limit.
We fix that by passing the `CodeExampleKind` to the `format` routine
instead of just the code itself. In this way, `format` can query whether
there will be any extra indent added _after_ formatting the code and
take that into account for its line length setting.
We add a few regression tests, taken directly from @stinodego's
examples.
Fixes#9126
## Summary
This PR changes the internal `docstring-code-line-width` setting to
additionally accept a string value `dynamic`. When `dynamic` is set, the
line width is dynamically adjusted when reformatting code snippets in
docstrings based on the indent level of the docstring. The result is
that the reformatted lines from the code snippet should not exceed the
"global" line width configuration for the surrounding source.
This PR does not change the default behavior, although I suspect the
default should probably be `dynamic`.
## Test Plan
I added a new configuration to the existing docstring code tests and
also added a new set of tests dedicated to the new `dynamic` mode.
## Summary
This does the light plumbing necessary to add a new internal option that
permits setting the line width of code examples in docstrings. The plan
is to add the corresponding user facing knob in #8854.
Note that this effectively removes the `same-as-global` configuration
style discussed [in this
comment](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8855#issuecomment-1847230440).
It replaces it with the `{integer}` configuration style only.
There are a lot of commits here, but they are each tiny to make review
easier because of the changes to snapshots.
## Test Plan
I added a new docstring test configuration that sets
`docstring-code-line-width = 60` and examined the differences.
(This is not possible to actually use until
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/8854 is merged.)
This commit slots in support for formatting Markdown fenced code
blocks[1]. With the refactoring done for reStructuredText previously,
this ended up being pretty easy to add. Markdown code blocks are also
quite a bit easier to parse and recognize correctly.
One point of contention in #8860 is whether to assume that unlabeled
Markdown code fences are Python or not by default. In this PR, we make
such an assumption. This follows what `rustdoc` does. The mitigation
here is that if an unlabeled code block isn't Python, then it probably
won't parse as Python. And we'll end up skipping it. So in the vast
majority of cases, the worst thing that can happen is a little bit of
wasted work.
Closes#8860
[1]: https://spec.commonmark.org/0.30/#fenced-code-blocks
(This is not possible to actually use until
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/8854 is merged.)
ruff_python_formatter: add reStructuredText docstring formatting support
This commit makes use of the refactoring done in prior commits to slot
in reStructuredText support. Essentially, we add a new type of code
example and look for *both* literal blocks and code block directives.
Literal blocks are treated as Python by default because it seems to be a
[common
practice](https://github.com/adamchainz/blacken-docs/issues/195).
That is, literal blocks like this:
```
def example():
"""
Here's an example::
foo( 1 )
All done.
"""
pass
```
Will get reformatted. And code blocks (via reStructuredText directives)
will also get reformatted:
```
def example():
"""
Here's an example:
.. code-block:: python
foo( 1 )
All done.
"""
pass
```
When looking for a code block, it is possible for it to become invalid.
In which case, we back out of looking for a code example and print the
lines out as they are. As with doctest formatting, if reformatting the
code would result in invalid Python or if the code collected from the
block is invalid, then formatting is also skipped.
A number of tests have been added to check both the formatting and
resetting behavior. Mixed indentation is also tested a fair bit, since
one of my initial attempts at dealing with mixed indentation ended up
not working.
I recommend working through this PR commit-by-commit. There is in
particular a somewhat gnarly refactoring before reST support is added.
Closes#8859
In the source of working on #8859, I made a number of smallish refactors
to how code snippet formatting works. Most or all of these were
motivated by writing in support for reStructuredText blocks. They have
some fundamentally different requirements than doctests, and there are a
lot more ways for reStructuredText blocks to become invalid.
(Commit-by-commit review is recommended as the commit messages provide
further context on each change. I split this off from ongoing work to
make review more manageable.)
This turns `string` into a parent module with a `docstring` sub-module.
I arranged things this way because there are parts of the `string`
module that the `docstring` module wants to know about (such as a
`NormalizedString`). The alternative I think would be to make
`docstring` a sibling module and expose more of `string`'s internals.
I think I overall like this change because it gives docstring handling a
bit more room to breath. It has grown quite a bit with the addition of
code snippet formatting.
[This was suggested by
@charliermarsh.](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/8811#discussion_r1401169531)
2023-11-27 13:32:26 -05:00
Renamed from crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/expression/string.rs (Browse further)
