## 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>
## 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
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?
