## Summary
If a lambda doesn't contain any parameters, or any parameter _tokens_
(like `*`), we can use `None` for the parameters. This feels like a
better representation to me, since, e.g., what should the `TextRange` be
for a non-existent set of parameters? It also allows us to remove
several sites where we check if the `Parameters` is empty by seeing if
it contains any arguments, so semantically, we're already trying to
detect and model around this elsewhere.
Changing this also fixes a number of issues with dangling comments in
parameter-less lambdas, since those comments are now automatically
marked as dangling on the lambda. (As-is, we were also doing something
not-great whereby the lambda was responsible for formatting dangling
comments on the parameters, which has been removed.)
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6646.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6647.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Attaches comments around the `:=` operator in a named expression as
dangling, and formats them manually in the `named_expr.rs` formatter.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/5695.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
I noticed some inconsistencies around uses of `.range.start()`, structs
that have a `TextRange` field but don't implement `Ranged`, etc.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6384, although I think
the issue was fixed already on main, for the most part.
The linked issue is around formatting expressions like:
```python
def test():
(
yield
#comment 1
* # comment 2
# comment 3
test # comment 4
)
```
On main, prior to this PR, we now format like:
```python
def test():
(
yield (
# comment 1
# comment 2
# comment 3
*test
) # comment 4
)
```
Which strikes me as reasonable. (We can't test this, since it's a syntax
error after for our parser, despite being a syntax error in both cases
from CPython's perspective.)
Meanwhile, Black does:
```python
def test():
(
yield
# comment 1
* # comment 2
# comment 3
test # comment 4
)
```
So our formatting differs in that we move comments between the star and
the expression above the star.
As of this PR, we also support formatting this input, which is valid:
```python
def test():
(
yield
#comment 1
* # comment 2
# comment 3
test, # comment 4
1
)
```
Like:
```python
def test():
(
yield (
# comment 1
(
# comment 2
# comment 3
*test, # comment 4
1,
)
)
)
```
There were two fixes here: (1) marking starred comments as dangling and
formatting them properly; and (2) supporting parenthesized comments for
tuples that don't contain their own parentheses, as is often the case
for yielded tuples (previously, we hit a debug assert).
Note that this diff
## Test Plan
cargo test
## Summary
This PR adds support for parenthesized comments. A parenthesized comment
is a comment that appears within a parenthesis, but not within the range
of the expression enclosed by the parenthesis. For example, the comment
here is a parenthesized comment:
```python
if (
# comment
True
):
...
```
The parentheses enclose the `True`, but the range of `True` doesn’t
include the `# comment`.
There are at least two problems associated with parenthesized comments:
(1) associating the comment with the correct (i.e., enclosed) node; and
(2) formatting the comment correctly, once it has been associated with
the enclosed node.
The solution proposed here for (1) is to search for parentheses between
preceding and following node, and use open and close parentheses to
break ties, rather than always assigning to the preceding node.
For (2), we handle these special parenthesized comments in `FormatExpr`.
The biggest risk with this approach is that we forget some codepath that
force-disables parenthesization (by passing in `Parentheses::Never`).
I've audited all usages of that enum and added additional handling +
test coverage for such cases.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6390.
## Test Plan
`cargo test` with new cases.
Before:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| build | 0.75623 |
| cpython | 0.75472 |
| django | 0.99804 |
| transformers | 0.99618 |
| typeshed | 0.74233 |
| warehouse | 0.99601 |
| zulip | 0.99727 |
After:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| build | 0.75623 |
| cpython | 0.75472 |
| django | 0.99804 |
| transformers | 0.99618 |
| typeshed | 0.74237 |
| warehouse | 0.99601 |
| zulip | 0.99727 |
## Summary
In https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/6512, we added a flag to the
AST to mark implicitly-concatenated string expressions. This PR makes
use of that flag to remove the `is_implicit_concatenation` method.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
**Summary** Implement docstring formatting
**Test Plan** Matches black's `docstring.py` fixture exactly, added some
new cases for what is hard to debug with black and with what black
doesn't cover.
similarity index:
main:
zulip: 0.99702
django: 0.99784
warehouse: 0.99585
build: 0.75623
transformers: 0.99469
cpython: 0.75989
typeshed: 0.74853
this branch:
zulip: 0.99702
django: 0.99784
warehouse: 0.99585
build: 0.75623
transformers: 0.99464
cpython: 0.75517
typeshed: 0.74853
The regression in transformers is actually an improvement in a file they
don't format with black (they run `black examples tests src utils
setup.py conftest.py`, the difference is in hubconf.py). cpython doesn't
use black.
Closes#6196
## Summary
This PR modifies our logic for wrapping return type annotations.
Previously, we _always_ wrapped the annotation in parentheses if it
expanded; however, Black only exhibits this behavior when the function
parameters is empty (i.e., it doesn't and can't break). In other cases,
it uses the normal parenthesization rules, allowing nodes to bring their
own parentheses.
For example, given:
```python
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx() -> Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]:
...
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(x) -> Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]:
...
```
Black will format as:
```python
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx() -> (
Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]
):
...
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(
x,
) -> Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]:
...
```
Whereas, prior to this PR, Ruff would format as:
```python
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx() -> (
Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]
):
...
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(
x,
) -> (
Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]
):
...
```
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6431.
## Test Plan
Before:
- `zulip`: 0.99702
- `django`: 0.99784
- `warehouse`: 0.99585
- `build`: 0.75623
- `transformers`: 0.99470
- `cpython`: 0.75988
- `typeshed`: 0.74853
After:
- `zulip`: 0.99724
- `django`: 0.99791
- `warehouse`: 0.99586
- `build`: 0.75623
- `transformers`: 0.99474
- `cpython`: 0.75956
- `typeshed`: 0.74857
## Summary
This PR fixes some misformattings around optional parentheses for
expressions.
I first noticed that we were misformatting this:
```python
return (
unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", s1).casefold()
== unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", s2).casefold()
)
```
The above is stable Black formatting, but we were doing:
```python
return unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", s1).casefold() == unicodedata.normalize(
"NFKC", s2
).casefold()
```
Above, the "last" expression is a function call, so our
`can_omit_optional_parentheses` was returning `true`...
However, it turns out that Black treats function calls differently
depending on whether or not they have arguments -- presumedly because
they'll never split empty parentheses, and so they're functionally
non-useful. On further investigation, I believe this applies to all
parenthesized expressions. If Black can't split on the parentheses, it
doesn't leverage them when removing optional parentheses.
## Test Plan
Nice increase in similarity scores.
Before:
- `zulip`: 0.99702
- `django`: 0.99784
- `warehouse`: 0.99585
- `build`: 0.75623
- `transformers`: 0.99470
- `cpython`: 0.75989
- `typeshed`: 0.74853
After:
- `zulip`: 0.99705
- `django`: 0.99795
- `warehouse`: 0.99600
- `build`: 0.75623
- `transformers`: 0.99471
- `cpython`: 0.75989
- `typeshed`: 0.74853
We currently don't format all comments as match statements are not yet implemented. We can work around this for the top level match statement by setting them manually formatted but the mocked-out top level match doesn't call into its children so they would still have unformatted comments
## Summary
This PR renames the `MagicCommand` token to `IpyEscapeCommand` token and
`MagicKind` to `IpyEscapeKind` type to better reflect the purpose of the
token and type. Similarly, it renames the AST nodes from `LineMagic` to
`IpyEscapeCommand` prefixed with `Stmt`/`Expr` wherever necessary.
It also makes renames from using `jupyter_magic` to
`ipython_escape_commands` in various function names.
The mode value is still `Mode::Jupyter` because the escape commands are
part of the IPython syntax but the lexing/parsing is done for a Jupyter
notebook.
### Motivation behind the rename:
* IPython codebase defines it as "EscapeCommand" / "Escape Sequences":
* Escape Sequences:
292e3a2345/IPython/core/inputtransformer2.py (L329-L333)
* Escape command:
292e3a2345/IPython/core/inputtransformer2.py (L410-L411)
* The word "magic" is used mainly for the actual magic commands i.e.,
the ones starting with `%`/`%%`
(https://ipython.readthedocs.io/en/stable/interactive/reference.html#magic-command-system).
So, this avoids any confusion between the Magic token (`%`, `%%`) and
the escape command itself.
## Test Plan
* `cargo test` to make sure all renames are done correctly.
* `grep` for `jupyter_escape`/`magic` to make sure all renames are done
correctly.
## Summary
This PR moves `empty_parenthesized` such that it's peer to
`parenthesized`, and changes the API to better match that of
`parenthesized` (takes `&str` rather than `StaticText`, has a
`with_dangling_comments` method, etc.).
It may be intentionally _not_ part of `parentheses.rs`, but to me
they're so similar that it makes more sense for them to be in the same
module, with the same API, etc.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6068
These commits are kind of a mess as I did some stumbling around here.
Unrolls formatting of chained boolean operations to prevent nested
grouping which gives us Black-compatible formatting where each boolean
operation is on a new line.
## Summary
This PR modifies our `can_omit_optional_parentheses` rules to ensure
that if we see a call followed by an attribute, we treat that as an
attribute access rather than a splittable call expression.
This in turn ensures that we wrap like:
```python
ct_match = aaaaaaaaaaact_id == self.get_content_type(
obj=rel_obj, using=instance._state.db
)
```
For calls, but:
```python
ct_match = (
aaaaaaaaaaact_id == self.get_content_type(obj=rel_obj, using=instance._state.db).id
)
```
For calls with trailing attribute accesses.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6065.
## Test Plan
Similarity index before:
- `zulip`: 0.99436
- `django`: 0.99779
- `warehouse`: 0.99504
- `transformers`: 0.99403
- `cpython`: 0.75912
- `typeshed`: 0.72293
And after:
- `zulip`: 0.99436
- `django`: 0.99780
- `warehouse`: 0.99504
- `transformers`: 0.99404
- `cpython`: 0.75913
- `typeshed`: 0.72293
## Summary
Per the suggestion in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/discussions/6183, this PR removes
`AsyncWith`, `AsyncFor`, and `AsyncFunctionDef`, replacing them with an
`is_async` field on the non-async variants of those structs. Unlike an
interpreter, we _generally_ have identical handling for these nodes, so
separating them into distinct variants adds complexity from which we
don't really benefit. This can be seen below, where we get to remove a
_ton_ of code related to adding generic `Any*` wrappers, and a ton of
duplicate branches for these cases.
## Test Plan
`cargo test` is unchanged, apart from parser snapshots.
## Summary
Given:
```python
[ # comment
first,
second,
third
] # another comment
```
We were adding a hard line break as part of the formatting of `#
comment`, which led to the following formatting:
```python
[first, second, third] # comment
# another comment
```
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6367.
## Summary
Fixes some comprehension formatting by avoiding creating the group for
the comprehension itself (so that if it breaks, all parts break on their
own lines, e.g. the `for` and the `if` clauses).
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6063.
## Test Plan
Bunch of new fixtures.
Implement fluent style/call chains. See the `call_chains.py` formatting
for examples.
This isn't fully like black because in `raise A from B` they allow `A`
breaking can influence the formatting of `B` even if it is already
multiline.
Similarity index:
| project | main | PR |
|--------------|-------|-------|
| build | ??? | 0.753 |
| django | 0.991 | 0.998 |
| transformers | 0.993 | 0.994 |
| typeshed | 0.723 | 0.723 |
| warehouse | 0.978 | 0.994 |
| zulip | 0.992 | 0.994 |
Call chain formatting is affected by
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/627, but i'm cutting scope
here.
Closes#5343
**Test Plan**:
* Added a dedicated call chains test file
* The ecosystem checks found some bugs
* I manually check django and zulip formatting
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
We already support preserving the end-of-line comment in calls and type
parameters, as in:
```python
foo( # comment
bar,
)
```
This PR adds the same behavior for lists, sets, comprehensions, etc.,
such that we preserve:
```python
[ # comment
1,
2,
3,
]
```
And related cases.
## Summary
Previously, the ruff formatter was removing the star argument of
`lambda` expressions when formatting.
Given the following code snippet
```python
lambda *a: ()
lambda **b: ()
```
it would be formatted to
```python
lambda: ()
lambda: ()
```
We fix this by checking for the presence of `args`, `vararg` or `kwarg`
in the `lambda` expression, before we were only checking for the
presence of `args`.
Fixes#5894
## Test Plan
Add new tests cases.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR leverages the `Arguments` AST node introduced in #6259 in the
formatter, which ensures that we correctly handle trailing comments in
calls, like:
```python
f(
1,
# comment
)
pass
```
(Previously, this was treated as a leading comment on `pass`.)
This also allows us to unify the argument handling across calls and
class definitions.
## Test Plan
A bunch of new fixture tests, plus improved Black compatibility.
## Summary
This PR adds a new `Arguments` AST node, which we can use for function
calls and class definitions.
The `Arguments` node spans from the left (open) to right (close)
parentheses inclusive.
In the case of classes, the `Arguments` is an option, to differentiate
between:
```python
# None
class C: ...
# Some, with empty vectors
class C(): ...
```
In this PR, we don't really leverage this change (except that a few
rules get much simpler, since we don't need to lex to find the start and
end ranges of the parentheses, e.g.,
`crates/ruff/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/lru_cache_without_parameters.rs`,
`crates/ruff/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/unnecessary_class_parentheses.rs`).
In future PRs, this will be especially helpful for the formatter, since
we can track comments enclosed on the node itself.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR renames a few AST nodes for clarity:
- `Arguments` is now `Parameters`
- `Arg` is now `Parameter`
- `ArgWithDefault` is now `ParameterWithDefault`
For now, the attribute names that reference `Parameters` directly are
changed (e.g., on `StmtFunctionDef`), but the attributes on `Parameters`
itself are not (e.g., `vararg`). We may revisit that decision in the
future.
For context, the AST node formerly known as `Arguments` is used in
function definitions. Formally (outside of the Python context),
"arguments" typically refers to "the values passed to a function", while
"parameters" typically refers to "the variables used in a function
definition". E.g., if you Google "arguments vs parameters", you'll get
some explanation like:
> A parameter is a variable in a function definition. It is a
placeholder and hence does not have a concrete value. An argument is a
value passed during function invocation.
We're thus deviating from Python's nomenclature in favor of a scheme
that we find to be more precise.
