Part of #5062
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/5931
Implements formatting of a sequence of type parameters in a dedicated
struct for reuse by classes, functions, and type aliases (preparing for
#5929). Adds formatting of type parameters in class and function
definitions — previously, they were just elided.
## Summary
Builds on #6170 to break `global` and `nonlocal` statements, such that
we get:
```python
def f():
global \
analyze_featuremap_layer, \
analyze_featuremapcompression_layer, \
analyze_latencies_post, \
analyze_motions_layer, \
analyze_size_model
```
Instead of:
```python
def f():
global analyze_featuremap_layer, analyze_featuremapcompression_layer, analyze_latencies_post, analyze_motions_layer, analyze_size_model
```
Notably, we avoid applying this formatting if the statement ends in a
comment. Otherwise, the comment would _need_ to be placed after the last
item, like:
```python
def f():
global \
analyze_featuremap_layer, \
analyze_featuremapcompression_layer, \
analyze_latencies_post, \
analyze_motions_layer, \
analyze_size_model # noqa
```
To me, this seems wrong (and would break the `# noqa` comment). Ideally,
the items would be parenthesized, and the comment would be on the inner
parenthesis, like:
```python
def f():
global ( # noqa
analyze_featuremap_layer,
analyze_featuremapcompression_layer,
analyze_latencies_post,
analyze_motions_layer,
analyze_size_model
)
```
But that's not valid syntax.
## Summary
This PR boxes the `TypeParams` and `Arguments` fields on the class
definition node. These fields are optional and often emitted, and given
that class definition is our largest enum variant, we pay the cost of
including them for every statement in the AST. Boxing these types
reduces the statement size by 40 bytes, which seems like a good tradeoff
given how infrequently these are accessed.
## Test Plan
Need to benchmark, but no behavior changes.
## Summary
This PR leverages the `Arguments` AST node introduced in #6259 in the
formatter, which ensures that we correctly handle trailing comments in
calls, like:
```python
f(
1,
# comment
)
pass
```
(Previously, this was treated as a leading comment on `pass`.)
This also allows us to unify the argument handling across calls and
class definitions.
## Test Plan
A bunch of new fixture tests, plus improved Black compatibility.
## Summary
This PR adds a new `Arguments` AST node, which we can use for function
calls and class definitions.
The `Arguments` node spans from the left (open) to right (close)
parentheses inclusive.
In the case of classes, the `Arguments` is an option, to differentiate
between:
```python
# None
class C: ...
# Some, with empty vectors
class C(): ...
```
In this PR, we don't really leverage this change (except that a few
rules get much simpler, since we don't need to lex to find the start and
end ranges of the parentheses, e.g.,
`crates/ruff/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/lru_cache_without_parameters.rs`,
`crates/ruff/src/rules/pyupgrade/rules/unnecessary_class_parentheses.rs`).
In future PRs, this will be especially helpful for the formatter, since
we can track comments enclosed on the node itself.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Black allows up to one blank line _before_ a class docstring, and
enforces one blank line _after_ a class docstring. This PR implements
that handling. The cases in
`crates/ruff_python_formatter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/statement/class_definition.py`
match Black identically.
## Summary
This PR ensures that if a function or class is the first statement in a
nested suite that _isn't_ a function or class body, we insert a leading
newline.
For example, given:
```python
def f():
if True:
def register_type():
pass
```
We _want_ to preserve the newline, whereas today, we remove it.
Note that this only applies when the function or class doesn't have any
leading comments.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6066.
<!--
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 removes the `type_comment` field which our parser doesn't support.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
This PR moves the "insert empty lines" behavior out of
`JoinNodesBuilder` and into the `Suite` formatter. I find it a little
confusing that the logic is split between those two formatters right
now, and since this is _only_ used in that one place, IMO it is a bit
simpler to just inline it and use a single approach to tracking state
(right now, both are stateful).
The only other place this was used was for decorators. As a side effect,
we now remove blank lines in both of these cases, which is a known but
intentional deviation from Black (which preserves the empty line before
the comment in the first case):
```python
@foo
# Hello
@bar
def baz():
pass
@foo
@bar
def baz():
pass
```
## Summary
Adds `global` and `nonlocal` formatting, without the "deviation from
black" outlined in the linked issue, which I'll do separately.
See: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/4798.
## Test Plan
Added a fixture in the Ruff-specific directory since the Black fixtures
don't seem to cover this.
## Summary
This is a rewrite of the main comment placement logic. `place_comment`
now has three parts:
- place own line comments
- between branches
- after a branch
- place end-of-line comments
- after colon
- after a branch
- place comments for specific nodes (that include module level comments)
The rewrite fixed three bugs: `class A: # trailing comment` comments now
stay end-of-line, `try: # comment` remains end-of-line and deeply
indented try-else-finally comments remain with the right nested
statement.
It will be much easier to give more alternative branches nodes since
this is abstracted away by `is_node_with_body` and the first/last child
helpers. Adding new node types can now be done by adding an entry to the
`place_comment` match. The code went from 1526 lines before #6033 to
1213 lines now.
It thinks it easier to just read the new `placement.rs` rather than
reviewing the diff.
## Test Plan
The existing fixtures staying the same or improving plus new ones for
the bug fixes.
## Summary
This PR adds the implementation for the new Jupyter AST nodes i.e.,
`ExprLineMagic` and `StmtLineMagic`.
## Test Plan
Add test cases for `unparse` containing magic commands
resolves: #6087
## 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** 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>
