<!--
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?
-->
Fixes#6611
## Summary
This lint rule spots comments that are _intended_ to suppress or enable
the formatter, but will be ignored by the Ruff formatter.
We borrow some functions the formatter uses for determining comment
placement / putting them in context within an AST.
The analysis function uses an AST visitor to visit each comment and
attach it to the AST. It then uses that context to check:
1. Is this comment in an expression?
2. Does this comment have bad placement? (e.g. a `# fmt: skip` above a
function instead of at the end of a line)
3. Is this comment redundant?
4. Does this comment actually suppress any code?
5. Does this comment have ambiguous placement? (e.g. a `# fmt: off`
above an `else:` block)
If any of these are true, a violation is thrown. The reported reason
depends on the order of the above check-list: in other words, a `# fmt:
skip` comment on its own line within a list expression will be reported
as being in an expression, since that reason takes priority.
The lint suggests removing the comment as an unsafe fix, regardless of
the reason.
## Test Plan
A snapshot test has been created.
<!--
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
Format `continue` statement.
## Test Plan
`continue` is used already in some tests, but if a new test is needed I
could add it.
---------
Co-authored-by: konstin <konstin@mailbox.org>
<!--
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?
