## Summary
This crate now contains utilities for dealing with trivia more broadly:
whitespace, newlines, "simple" trivia lexing, etc. So renaming it to
reflect its increased responsibilities.
To avoid conflicts, I've also renamed `Token` and `TokenKind` to
`SimpleToken` and `SimpleTokenKind`.
**Summary** Add a static string error message to the formatter syntax
error so we can disambiguate where the syntax error came from
**Test Plan** No fixed tests, we don't expect this to occur, but it
helped with transformers syntax error debugging:
```
Error: Failed to format node
Caused by:
syntax error: slice first colon token was not a colon
```
## Summary
The motivation here is that it will make this rule easier to rewrite as
a deferred check. Right now, we can't run this rule in the deferred
phase, because it depends on the `except_handler` to power its autofix.
Instead of lexing the `except_handler`, we can use the `SimpleTokenizer`
from the formatter, and just lex forwards and backwards.
For context, this rule detects the unused `e` in:
```python
try:
pass
except ValueError as e:
pass
```
## Summary
Previously, `StmtIf` was defined recursively as
```rust
pub struct StmtIf {
pub range: TextRange,
pub test: Box<Expr>,
pub body: Vec<Stmt>,
pub orelse: Vec<Stmt>,
}
```
Every `elif` was represented as an `orelse` with a single `StmtIf`. This
means that this representation couldn't differentiate between
```python
if cond1:
x = 1
else:
if cond2:
x = 2
```
and
```python
if cond1:
x = 1
elif cond2:
x = 2
```
It also makes many checks harder than they need to be because we have to
recurse just to iterate over an entire if-elif-else and because we're
lacking nodes and ranges on the `elif` and `else` branches.
We change the representation to a flat
```rust
pub struct StmtIf {
pub range: TextRange,
pub test: Box<Expr>,
pub body: Vec<Stmt>,
pub elif_else_clauses: Vec<ElifElseClause>,
}
pub struct ElifElseClause {
pub range: TextRange,
pub test: Option<Expr>,
pub body: Vec<Stmt>,
}
```
where `test: Some(_)` represents an `elif` and `test: None` an else.
This representation is different tradeoff, e.g. we need to allocate the
`Vec<ElifElseClause>`, the `elif`s are now different than the `if`s
(which matters in rules where want to check both `if`s and `elif`s) and
the type system doesn't guarantee that the `test: None` else is actually
last. We're also now a bit more inconsistent since all other `else`,
those from `for`, `while` and `try`, still don't have nodes. With the
new representation some things became easier, e.g. finding the `elif`
token (we can use the start of the `ElifElseClause`) and formatting
comments for if-elif-else (no more dangling comments splitting, we only
have to insert the dangling comment after the colon manually and set
`leading_alternate_branch_comments`, everything else is taken of by
having nodes for each branch and the usual placement.rs fixups).
## Merge Plan
This PR requires coordination between the parser repo and the main ruff
repo. I've split the ruff part, into two stacked PRs which have to be
merged together (only the second one fixes all tests), the first for the
formatter to be reviewed by @michareiser and the second for the linter
to be reviewed by @charliermarsh.
* MH: Review and merge
https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/20
* MH: Review and merge or move later in stack
https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/21
* MH: Review and approve
https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/22
* MH: Review and approve formatter PR
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/5459
* CM: Review and approve linter PR
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/5460
* Merge linter PR in formatter PR, fix ecosystem checks (ecosystem
checks can't run on the formatter PR and won't run on the linter PR, so
we need to merge them first)
* Merge https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/22
* Create tag in the parser, update linter+formatter PR
* Merge linter+formatter PR https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/5459
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
<!--
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 improves the parentheses handling for with items to get closer
to black's formatting.
### Case 1:
```python
# Black / Input
with (
[
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
+ cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
+ ddddddddddddddddd as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
):
...
# Before
with (
[
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1,
(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
+ cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
+ ddddddddddddddddd
) as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
):
...
```
Notice how Ruff wraps the binary expression in an extra set of
parentheses
### Case 2:
Black does not expand the with-items if the with has no parentheses:
```python
# Black / Input
with aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb as c:
...
# Before
with (
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb as c
):
...
```
Or
```python
# Black / Input
with [
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa * bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb * cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc + ddddddddddddddddd as example2, CtxManager222222222222222() as example2:
...
# Before (Same as Case 1)
with (
[
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1,
(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
* bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
* cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
+ ddddddddddddddddd
) as example2,
CtxManager222222222222222() as example2,
):
...
```
## Test Plan
I added new snapshot tests
Improves the django similarity index from 0.973 to 0.977
<!--
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
I started working on this because I assumed that I would need access to options inside of `NeedsParantheses` but it then turned out that I won't.
Anyway, it kind of felt nice to pass fewer arguments. So I'm gonna put this out here to get your feedback if you prefer this over passing individual fiels.
Oh, I sneeked in another change. I renamed `context.contents` to `source`. `contents` is too generic and doesn't tell you anything.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
It compiles
<!--
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 Black's behavior where it first splits off parenthesized expressions before splitting before operands to avoid unnecessary parentheses:
```python
# We want
if a + [
b,
c
]:
pass
# Rather than
if (
a
+ [b, c]
):
pass
```
This is implemented by using the new IR elements introduced in #5596.
* We give the group wrapping the optional parentheses an ID (`parentheses_id`)
* We use `conditional_group` for the lower priority groups (all non-parenthesized expressions) with the condition that the `parentheses_id` group breaks (we want to split before operands only if the parentheses are necessary)
* We use `fits_expanded` to wrap all other parenthesized expressions (lists, dicts, sets), to prevent that expanding e.g. a list expands the `parentheses_id` group. We gate the `fits_expand` to only apply if the `parentheses_id` group fits (because we prefer `a\n+[b, c]` over expanding `[b, c]` if the whole expression gets parenthesized).
We limit using `fits_expanded` and `conditional_group` only to expressions that themselves are not in parentheses (checking the conditions isn't free)
## Test Plan
It increases the Jaccard index for Django from 0.915 to 0.917
## Incompatibilites
There are two incompatibilities left that I'm aware of (there may be more, I didn't go through all snapshot differences).
### Long string literals
I commented on the regression. The issue is that a very long string (or any content without a split point) may not fit when only breaking the right side. The formatter than inserts the optional parentheses. But this is kind of useless because the overlong string will still not fit, because there are no new split points.
I think we should ignore this incompatibility for now
### Expressions on statement level
I don't fully understand the logic behind this yet, but black doesn't break before the operators for the following example even though the expression exceeds the configured line width
```python
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa < bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb > ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc == ddddddddddddddddddddd
```
But it would if the expression is used inside of a condition.
What I understand so far is that Black doesn't insert optional parentheses on the expression statement level (and a few other places) and, therefore, only breaks after opening parentheses. I propose to keep this deviation for now to avoid overlong-lines and use the compatibility report to make a decision if we should implement the same behavior.
## Summary
This is the result of running `cargo +nightly clippy --workspace
--all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings` and fixing all violations.
Just wanted to see if there were any interesting new checks on nightly
👀
## Summary
This PR implements the formatting of `raise` statements. I haven't
looked at the black implementation, this is inspired from from the
`return` statements formatting.
## Test Plan
The black differences with insta.
I also compared manually some edge cases with very long string and call
chaining and it seems to do the same formatting as black.
There is one issue:
```python
# input
raise OsError(
"aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa"
) from a.aaaaa(aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa).a(aaaa)
# black
raise OsError(
"aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa"
) from a.aaaaa(
aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa
).a(
aaaa
)
# ruff
raise OsError(
"aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa"
) from a.aaaaa(
aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa
).a(aaaa)
```
But I'm not sure this diff is the raise formatting implementation.
---------
Co-authored-by: Louis Dispa <ldispa@deezer.com>
## Summary
Fix an oversight in `find_only_token_in_range` where the following code
would panic due do the closing and opening parentheses being in the
range we scan:
```python
d1 = [
("a") if # 1
("b") else # 2
("c")
]
```
Closing and opening parentheses respectively are now correctly skipped.
## Test Plan
I added a regression test
## Summary
Format `ExprIfExp`, also known as the ternary operator or inline `if`.
It can look like
```python
a1 = 1 if True else 2
```
but also
```python
b1 = (
# We return "a" ...
"a" # that's our True value
# ... if this condition matches ...
if True # that's our test
# ... otherwise we return "b§
else "b" # that's our False value
)
```
This also fixes a visitor order bug.
The jaccard index on django goes from 0.911 to 0.915.
## Test Plan
I added fixtures without and with comments in strange places.
## Summary
The following code was previously leading to unstable formatting:
```python
try:
try:
pass
finally:
print(1) # issue7208
except A:
pass
```
The comment would be formatted as a trailing comment of `try` which is
unstable as an end-of-line comment gets two extra whitespaces.
This was originally found in
99b00efd5e/Lib/getpass.py (L68-L91)
## Test Plan
I added a regression test
Support for `let…else` formatting was just merged to nightly
(rust-lang/rust#113225). Rerun `cargo fmt` with Rust nightly 2023-07-02
to pick this up. Followup to #939.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
## Summary
This formats call expressions with magic trailing comma and parentheses
behaviour but without call chaining
## Test Plan
Lots of new test fixtures, including some that don't work yet
## Motation
Previously,
```python
x = (
a1
.a2
# a
. # b
# c
a3
)
```
got formatted as
```python
x = a1.a2
# a
. # b
# c
a3
```
which is invalid syntax. This fixes that.
## Summary
This implements a basic form of attribute chaining
(<https://black.readthedocs.io/en/stable/the_black_code_style/current_style.html#call-chains>)
by checking if any inner attribute access contains an own line comment,
and if this is the case, adds parentheses around the outermost attribute
access while disabling parentheses for all inner attribute expressions.
We want to replace this with an implementation that uses recursion or a
stack while formatting instead of in `needs_parentheses` and also
includes calls rather sooner than later, but i'm fixing this now because
i'm uncomfortable with having known invalid syntax generation in the
formatter.
## Test Plan
I added new fixtures.
In the following code, the comment used to get wrongly associated with
the `if False` since it looked like an elif. This fixes it by checking
the indentation and adding a regression test
```python
if True:
pass
else: # Comment
if False:
pass
pass
```
Originally found in
1570b94a02/gradio/external.py (L478)
## Summary
This snippet used to panic because it expected to see a comma or
something similar after the `2` but met the closing parentheses that is
not part of the range and panicked
```python
a = {
1: (2),
# comment
3: True,
}
```
Originally found in
636a717ef0/testing/marionette/client/marionette_driver/geckoinstance.py (L109)
This snippet is also the test plan.
## Summary
This is a complete rewrite of the handling of `/` and `*` comment
handling in function signatures. The key problem is that slash and star
don't have a note. We now parse out the positions of slash and star and
their respective preceding and following note. I've left code comments
for each possible case of function signature structure and comment
placement
## Test Plan
I extended the function statement fixtures with cases that i found. If
you have more weird edge cases your input would be appreciated.
## Summary
This fixes two problems discovered when trying to format the cpython
repo with `cargo run --bin ruff_dev -- check-formatter-stability
projects/cpython`:
The first is to ignore try/except trailing comments for now since they
lead to unstable formatting on the dummy.
The second is to avoid dropping trailing if comments through placement:
This changes the placement to keep a comment trailing an if-elif or
if-elif-else to keep the comment a trailing comment on the entire if.
Previously the last comment would have been lost.
```python
if "first if":
pass
elif "first elif":
pass
```
The last remaining problem in cpython so far is function signature
argument separator comment placement which is its own PR on top of this.
## Test Plan
I added test fixtures of minimized examples with links back to the
original cpython location
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.
## Summary
I found it hard to figure out which function decides placement for a
specific comment. An explicit loop makes this easier to debug
## Test Plan
There should be no functional changes, no changes to the formatting of
the fixtures.
## Summary
Previously, `DecoratedComment` used `text_position()` and
`SourceComment` used `position()`. This PR unifies this to
`line_position` everywhere.
## Test Plan
This is a rename refactoring.
## Summary
In https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/8, we modified
RustPython to include ranges for any identifiers that aren't
`Expr::Name` (which already has an identifier).
For example, the `e` in `except ValueError as e` was previously
un-ranged. To extract its range, we had to do some lexing of our own.
This change should improve performance and let us remove a bunch of
code.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR upgrade RustPython to pull in the changes to `Arguments` (zip
defaults with their identifiers) and all the renames to `CmpOp` and
friends.
## Summary
This fixes a number of problems in the formatter that showed up with
various files in the [cpython](https://github.com/python/cpython)
repository. These problems surfaced as unstable formatting and invalid
code. This is not the entirety of problems discovered through cpython,
but a big enough chunk to separate it. Individual fixes are generally
individual commits. They were discovered with #5055, which i update as i
work through the output
## Test Plan
I added regression tests with links to cpython for each entry, except
for the two stubs that also got comment stubs since they'll be
implemented properly later.
## Summary
This PR runs `rustfmt` with a few nightly options as a one-time fix to
catch some malformatted comments. I ended up just running with:
```toml
condense_wildcard_suffixes = true
edition = "2021"
max_width = 100
normalize_comments = true
normalize_doc_attributes = true
reorder_impl_items = true
unstable_features = true
use_field_init_shorthand = true
```
Since these all seem like reasonable things to fix, so may as well while
I'm here.
## Summary
We use `.trim()` and friends in a bunch of places, to strip whitespace
from source code. However, not all Unicode whitespace characters are
considered "whitespace" in Python, which only supports the standard
space, tab, and form-feed characters.
This PR audits our usages of `.trim()`, `.trim_start()`, `.trim_end()`,
and `char::is_whitespace`, and replaces them as appropriate with a new
`.trim_whitespace()` analogues, powered by a `PythonWhitespace` trait.
In general, the only place that should continue to use `.trim()` is
content within docstrings, which don't need to adhere to Python's
semantic definitions of whitespace.
Closes#4991.
## Summary
`ruff_newlines` becomes `ruff_python_whitespace`, and includes the
existing "universal newline" handlers alongside the Python
whitespace-specific utilities.
<!--
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
And more custom logic around comments in bodies... uff.
Let's say we have the following code
```python
if x == y:
pass # trailing comment of pass
else: # trailing comment of `else`
print("I have no comments")
```
Right now, the formatter attaches the `# trailing comment of `else` as a trailing comment of `pass` because it doesn't "see" that there's an `else` keyword in between (because the else body is just a Vec and not a node).
This PR adds custom logic that attaches the trailing comments after the `else` as dangling comments to the `if` statement. The if statement must then split the dangling comments by `comments.text_position()`:
* All comments up to the first end-of-line comment are leading comments of the `else` keyword.
* All end-of-line comments coming after are `trailing` comments for the `else` keyword.
## Test Plan
I added new unit tests.
