Rebase of #6365 authored by @davidszotten.
## Summary
This PR updates the AST structure for an f-string elements.
The main **motivation** behind this change is to have a dedicated node
for the string part of an f-string. Previously, the existing
`ExprStringLiteral` node was used for this purpose which isn't exactly
correct. The `ExprStringLiteral` node should include the quotes as well
in the range but the f-string literal element doesn't include the quote
as it's a specific part within an f-string. For example,
```python
f"foo {x}"
# ^^^^
# This is the literal part of an f-string
```
The introduction of `FStringElement` enum is helpful which represent
either the literal part or the expression part of an f-string.
### Rule Updates
This means that there'll be two nodes representing a string depending on
the context. One for a normal string literal while the other is a string
literal within an f-string. The AST checker is updated to accommodate
this change. The rules which work on string literal are updated to check
on the literal part of f-string as well.
#### Notes
1. The `Expr::is_literal_expr` method would check for
`ExprStringLiteral` and return true if so. But now that we don't
represent the literal part of an f-string using that node, this improves
the method's behavior and confines to the actual expression. We do have
the `FStringElement::is_literal` method.
2. We avoid checking if we're in a f-string context before adding to
`string_type_definitions` because the f-string literal is now a
dedicated node and not part of `Expr`.
3. Annotations cannot use f-string so we avoid changing any rules which
work on annotation and checks for `ExprStringLiteral`.
## Test Plan
- All references of `Expr::StringLiteral` were checked to see if any of
the rules require updating to account for the f-string literal element
node.
- New test cases are added for rules which check against the literal
part of an f-string.
- Check the ecosystem results and ensure it remains unchanged.
## Performance
There's a performance penalty in the parser. The reason for this remains
unknown as it seems that the generated assembly code is now different
for the `__reduce154` function. The reduce function body is just popping
the `ParenthesizedExpr` on top of the stack and pushing it with the new
location.
- The size of `FStringElement` enum is the same as `Expr` which is what
it replaces in `FString::format_spec`
- The size of `FStringExpressionElement` is the same as
`ExprFormattedValue` which is what it replaces
I tried reducing the `Expr` enum from 80 bytes to 72 bytes but it hardly
resulted in any performance gain. The difference can be seen here:
- Original profile: https://share.firefox.dev/3Taa7ES
- Profile after boxing some node fields:
https://share.firefox.dev/3GsNXpD
### Backtracking
I tried backtracking the changes to see if any of the isolated change
produced this regression. The problem here is that the overall change is
so small that there's only a single checkpoint where I can backtrack and
that checkpoint results in the same regression. This checkpoint is to
revert using `Expr` to the `FString::format_spec` field. After this
point, the change would revert back to the original implementation.
## Review process
The review process is similar to #7927. The first set of commits update
the node structure, parser, and related AST files. Then, further commits
update the linter and formatter part to account for the AST change.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Szotten <davidszotten@gmail.com>
Update to [Rust
1.74](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2023/11/16/Rust-1.74.0.html) and use
the new clippy lints table.
The update itself introduced a new clippy lint about superfluous hashes
in raw strings, which got removed.
I moved our lint config from `rustflags` to the newly stabilized
[workspace.lints](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/cargo/reference/workspaces.html#the-lints-table).
One consequence is that we have to `unsafe_code = "warn"` instead of
"forbid" because the latter now actually bans unsafe code:
```
error[E0453]: allow(unsafe_code) incompatible with previous forbid
--> crates/ruff_source_file/src/newlines.rs:62:17
|
62 | #[allow(unsafe_code)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ overruled by previous forbid
|
= note: `forbid` lint level was set on command line
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR renames a few AST nodes for clarity:
- `Arguments` is now `Parameters`
- `Arg` is now `Parameter`
- `ArgWithDefault` is now `ParameterWithDefault`
For now, the attribute names that reference `Parameters` directly are
changed (e.g., on `StmtFunctionDef`), but the attributes on `Parameters`
itself are not (e.g., `vararg`). We may revisit that decision in the
future.
For context, the AST node formerly known as `Arguments` is used in
function definitions. Formally (outside of the Python context),
"arguments" typically refers to "the values passed to a function", while
"parameters" typically refers to "the variables used in a function
definition". E.g., if you Google "arguments vs parameters", you'll get
some explanation like:
> A parameter is a variable in a function definition. It is a
placeholder and hence does not have a concrete value. An argument is a
value passed during function invocation.
We're thus deviating from Python's nomenclature in favor of a scheme
that we find to be more precise.
<!--
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 `Interactive` and `FunctionType` parser modes that are unused by ruff
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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 ignore node from the AST because our parser doesn't support it, and just having it around is confusing.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo build`
<!-- How was it tested? -->
