## Summary
This PR renames the `MagicCommand` token to `IpyEscapeCommand` token and
`MagicKind` to `IpyEscapeKind` type to better reflect the purpose of the
token and type. Similarly, it renames the AST nodes from `LineMagic` to
`IpyEscapeCommand` prefixed with `Stmt`/`Expr` wherever necessary.
It also makes renames from using `jupyter_magic` to
`ipython_escape_commands` in various function names.
The mode value is still `Mode::Jupyter` because the escape commands are
part of the IPython syntax but the lexing/parsing is done for a Jupyter
notebook.
### Motivation behind the rename:
* IPython codebase defines it as "EscapeCommand" / "Escape Sequences":
* Escape Sequences:
292e3a2345/IPython/core/inputtransformer2.py (L329-L333)
* Escape command:
292e3a2345/IPython/core/inputtransformer2.py (L410-L411)
* The word "magic" is used mainly for the actual magic commands i.e.,
the ones starting with `%`/`%%`
(https://ipython.readthedocs.io/en/stable/interactive/reference.html#magic-command-system).
So, this avoids any confusion between the Magic token (`%`, `%%`) and
the escape command itself.
## Test Plan
* `cargo test` to make sure all renames are done correctly.
* `grep` for `jupyter_escape`/`magic` to make sure all renames are done
correctly.
## Summary
This PR adds support for a stricter version of help end escape
commands[^1] in the parser. By stricter, I mean that the escape tokens
are only at the end of the command and there are no tokens at the start.
This makes it difficult to implement it in the lexer without having to
do a lot of look aheads or keeping track of previous tokens.
Now, as we're adding this in the parser, the lexer needs to recognize
and emit a new token for `?`. So, `Question` token is added which will
be recognized only in `Jupyter` mode.
The conditions applied are the same as the ones in the original
implementation in IPython codebase (which is a regex):
* There can only be either 1 or 2 question mark(s) at the end
* The node before the question mark can be a `Name`, `Attribute`,
`Subscript` (only with integer constants in slice position), or any
combination of the 3 nodes.
## Test Plan
Added test cases for various combination of the possible nodes in the
command value position and update the snapshots.
fixes: #6359fixes: #5030 (This is the final piece)
[^1]: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/6272#issue-1833094281
## Summary
Per the suggestion in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/discussions/6183, this PR removes
`AsyncWith`, `AsyncFor`, and `AsyncFunctionDef`, replacing them with an
`is_async` field on the non-async variants of those structs. Unlike an
interpreter, we _generally_ have identical handling for these nodes, so
separating them into distinct variants adds complexity from which we
don't really benefit. This can be seen below, where we get to remove a
_ton_ of code related to adding generic `Any*` wrappers, and a ton of
duplicate branches for these cases.
## Test Plan
`cargo test` is unchanged, apart from parser snapshots.
## Summary
This PR adds support for help end escape command in the lexer.
### What are "help end escape commands"?
First, the escape commands are special IPython syntax which enhances the
functionality for the IPython REPL. There are 9 types of escape kinds
which are recognized by the tokens which are present at the start of the
command (`?`, `??`, `!`, `!!`, etc.).
Here, the help command is using either the `?` or `??` token at the
start (`?str.replace` for example). Those 2 tokens are also supported
when they're at the end of the command (`str.replace?`), but the other
tokens aren't supported in that position.
There are mainly two types of help end escape commands:
1. Ending with either `?` or `??`, but it also starts with one of the
escape tokens (`%matplotlib?`)
2. On the other hand, there's a stricter version for (1) which doesn't
start with any escape tokens (`str.replace?`)
This PR adds support for (1) while (2) will be supported in the parser.
### Priority
Now, if the command starts and ends with an escape token, how do we
decide the kind of this command? This is where priority comes into
picture. This is simple as there's only one priority where `?`/`??` at
the end takes priority over any other escape token and all of the other
tokens are at the same priority. Remember that only `?`/`??` at the end
is considered valid.
This is mainly useful in the case where someone would want to invoke the
help command on the magic command itself. For example, in `%matplotlib?`
the help command takes priority which means that we want help for the
`matplotlib` magic function instead of calling the magic function
itself.
### Specification
Here's where things get a bit tricky. What if there are question mark
tokens at both ends. How do we decide if it's `Help` (`?`) kind or
`Help2` (`??`) kind?
| | Magic | Value | Kind |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | `?foo?` | `foo` | `Help` |
| 2 | `??foo?` | `foo` | `Help` |
| 3 | `?foo??` | `foo` | `Help2` |
| 4 | `??foo??` | `foo` | `Help2` |
| 5 | `???foo??` | `foo` | `Help2` |
| 6 | `??foo???` | `foo???` | `Help2` |
| 7 | `???foo???` | `?foo???` | `Help2` |
Looking at the above table:
- The question mark tokens on the right takes priority over the ones on
the left but only if the number of question mark on the right is 1 or 2.
- If there are more than 2 question mark tokens on the right side, then
the left side is used to determine the same.
- If the right side is used to determine the kind, then all of the
question marks and whitespaces on the left side are ignored in the
`value`, but if it’s the other way around, then all of the extra
question marks are part of the `value`.
### References
- IPython implementation using the regex:
292e3a2345/IPython/core/inputtransformer2.py (L454-L462)
- Priorities:
292e3a2345/IPython/core/inputtransformer2.py (L466-L469)
## Test Plan
Add a bunch of test cases for the lexer and verify that it matches the
behavior of
IPython transformer.
resolves: #6357
## Summary
Enable using the new `Mode::Jupyter` for the tokenizer/parser to parse
Jupyter line magic tokens.
The individual call to the lexer i.e., `lex_starts_at` done by various
rules should consider the context of the source code (is this content
from a Jupyter Notebook?). Thus, a new field `source_type` (of type
`PySourceType`) is added to `Checker` which is being passed around as an
argument to the relevant functions. This is then used to determine the
`Mode` for the lexer.
## Test Plan
Add new test cases to make sure that the magic statement is considered
while generating the diagnostic and autofix:
* For `I001`, if there's a magic statement in between two import blocks,
they should be sorted independently
fixes: #6090
## 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
Similar to #6259, this PR adds a `TypeParams` node to the AST, to
capture the list of type parameters with their surrounding brackets.
If a statement lacks type parameters, the `type_params` field will be
`None`.
## 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
This PR renames...
- `Parameter#arg` to `Parameter#name`
- `ParameterWithDefault#def` to `ParameterWithDefault#parameter` (such
that `ParameterWithDefault` has a `default` and a `parameter`)
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## 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_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? -->
<!--
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? -->
