## 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.
### Summary
This PR adds custom logic to handle end-of-line comments of the last statement in a body.
For example:
```python
while True:
if something.changed:
do.stuff() # trailing comment
b
```
The `# trailing comment` is a trailing comment of the `do.stuff()` expression statement. We incorrectly attached the comment as a trailing comment of the enclosing `while` statement because the comment is between the end of the while statement (the `while` statement ends right after `do.stuff()`) and before the `b` statement.
This PR fixes the placement to correctly attach these comments to the last statement in a body (recursively).
## Test Plan
I reviewed the snapshots and they now look correct. This may appear odd because a lot comments have now disappeared. This is the expected result because we use `verbatim` formatting for the block statements (like `while`) and that means that it only formats the inner content of the block, but not any trailing comments. The comments were visible before, because they were associated with the block statement (e.g. `while`).
