**Summary** This replaces the `todo!()` with a type alias stub in the
formatter. I added the tests from
704eb40108/parser/src/parser.rs (L901-L936)
as ruff python formatter tests.
**Test Plan** None, testing is part of the actual implementation
**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
## Summary
`StmtAnnAssign` would not insert parentheses when breaking the same way
`StmtAssign` does, causing unstable formatting and likely some syntax
errors.
## Test Plan
I added a regression test.
<!--
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
## Summary
Format statements such as `tree_depth += 1`. This is a statement that
does not allow any line breaks, the only thing to be mindful of is to
parenthesize the assigned expression
Jaccard index on django: 0.915 -> 0.918
## Test Plan
black tests, and two new tests, a basic one and one that ensures that
the child gets parentheses. I ran the django stability check.
## 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
Format import statements in all their variants. Specifically, this
implemented formatting `StmtImport`, `StmtImportFrom` and `Alias`.
## Test Plan
I added some custom snapshots, even though this has been covered well by
black's tests.
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>
<!--
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 adds a new `PyFormatOptions` struct that stores the python formatter options.
The new options aren't used yet, with the exception of magical trailing commas and the options passed to the printer.
I'll follow up with more PRs that use the new options (e.g. `QuoteStyle`).
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo test` I'll follow up with a new PR that adds support for overriding the options in our fixture tests.
## Summary
This is small refactoring to reuse the code that detects the magic
trailing comma across functions. I make this change now to avoid copying
code in a later PR. @MichaReiser is planning on making a larger
refactoring later that integrates with the join nodes builder
## Test Plan
No functional changes. The magic trailing comma behaviour is checked by
the fixtures.
<!--
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 StmtFor
still trying to learn how to help out with the formatter. trying
something slightly more advanced than [break](#5158)
mostly copied form StmtWhile
## Test Plan
snapshots
## 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
## 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
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>
## 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.
* Implement StmtPass
This implements StmtPass as `pass`.
The snapshot diff is small because pass mainly occurs in bodies and function (#4951) and if/for bodies.
* Implement StmtReturn
This implements StmtReturn as `return` or `return {value}`.
The snapshot diff is small because return occurs in functions (#4951)
* A basic StmtAssign formatter and better dummies for expressions
The goal of this PR was formatting StmtAssign since many nodes in the black tests (and in python in general) are after an assignment. This caused unstable formatting: The spacing of power op spacing depends on the type of the two involved expressions, but each expression was formatted as dummy string and re-parsed as a ExprName, so in the second round the different rules of ExprName were applied, causing unstable formatting.
This PR does not necessarily bring us closer to black's style, but it unlocks a good porting of black's test suite and is a basis for implementing the Expr nodes.
* fmt
* Review
<!--
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?
<!--
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 issue fixes the removal of empty lines between a leading comment and the previous statement:
```python
a = 20
# leading comment
b = 10
```
Ruff removed the empty line between `a` and `b` because:
* The leading comments formatting does not preserve leading newlines (to avoid adding new lines at the top of a body)
* The `JoinNodesBuilder` counted the lines before `b`, which is 1 -> Doesn't insert a new line
This is fixed by changing the `JoinNodesBuilder` to count the lines instead *after* the last node. This correctly gives 1, and the `# leading comment` will insert the empty lines between any other leading comment or the node.
## Test Plan
I added a new test for empty lines.
