## 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
The bug was happening in this
[loop](75f402eb82/crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/comments/placement.rs (L545)).
Basically, In the first iteration of the loop, the `comment_indentation`
is bigger than `child_indentation` (`comment_indentation` is 7 and
`child_indentation` is 4) making the `Ordering::Greater` branch execute.
Inside the `Ordering::Greater` branch, the `if` block gets executed,
resulting in the update of these variables.
```rust
parent_body = current_body;
current_body = Some(last_child_in_current_body);
last_child_in_current_body = nested_child;
```
In the second iteration of the loop, `comment_indentation` is smaller
than `child_indentation` (`comment_indentation` is 7 and
`child_indentation` is 8) making the `Ordering::Less` branch execute.
Inside the `Ordering::Less` branch, the `if` block gets executed, this
is where the bug was happening. At this point `parent_body` should be a
`StmtFunctionDef` but it was a `StmtClassDef`. Causing the comment to be
incorrectly formatted.
That happened for the following code:
```python
class A:
def f():
pass
# strangely indented comment
print()
```
There is only one problem that I couldn't figure it out a solution, the
variable `current_body` in this
[line](75f402eb82/crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/comments/placement.rs (L542C5-L542C49))
now gives this warning _"value assigned to `current_body` is never read
maybe it is overwritten before being read?"_
Any tips on how to solve that?
Closes#5337
## Test Plan
Add new test case.
---------
Co-authored-by: konstin <konstin@mailbox.org>
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
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
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
Previously, `DecoratedComment` used `text_position()` and
`SourceComment` used `position()`. This PR unifies this to
`line_position` everywhere.
## Test Plan
This is a rename refactoring.
<!--
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`).
