## Summary
This is effectively #6608, but with additional tests.
We aren't properly handling parenthesized patterns, but that needs to be
dealt with separately as it's somewhat involved.
Closes#6555
## Summary
Follows up on
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/6652#discussion_r1300871033 with
some modifications to the `PatternMatchAs` comment handling.
Specifically, any comments between the `as` and the end are now
formatted as dangling, and we now insert some newlines in the
appropriate places.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
For imports, we enforce that there's _at least_ one empty line after an
import (assuming the next statement is _not_ an import), but allow up to
two at the module level.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6760.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
If a lambda doesn't contain any parameters, or any parameter _tokens_
(like `*`), we can use `None` for the parameters. This feels like a
better representation to me, since, e.g., what should the `TextRange` be
for a non-existent set of parameters? It also allows us to remove
several sites where we check if the `Parameters` is empty by seeing if
it contains any arguments, so semantically, we're already trying to
detect and model around this elsewhere.
Changing this also fixes a number of issues with dangling comments in
parameter-less lambdas, since those comments are now automatically
marked as dangling on the lambda. (As-is, we were also doing something
not-great whereby the lambda was responsible for formatting dangling
comments on the parameters, which has been removed.)
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6646.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6647.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
The motivating code here was:
```python
with test as (
# test
foo):
pass
```
Which we were formatting as:
```python
with test as
# test
(foo):
pass
```
`with` statements are oddly difficult. This PR makes a bunch of subtle
modifications and adds a more extensive test suite. For example, we now
only preserve parentheses if there's more than one `WithItem` _or_ a
trailing comma; before, we always preserved.
Our formatting is_not_ the same as Black, but here's a diff of our
formatted code vs. Black's for the `with.py` test suite. The primary
difference is that we tend to break parentheses when they contain
comments rather than move them to the end of the life (this is a
consistent difference that we make across the codebase):
```diff
diff --git a/crates/ruff_python_formatter/foo.py b/crates/ruff_python_formatter/foo.py
index 85e761080..31625c876 100644
--- a/crates/ruff_python_formatter/foo.py
+++ b/crates/ruff_python_formatter/foo.py
@@ -1,6 +1,4 @@
-with (
- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-), aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:
+with aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:
...
# trailing
@@ -16,28 +14,33 @@ with (
# trailing
-with a, b: # a # comma # c # colon
+with (
+ a, # a # comma
+ b, # c
+): # colon
...
with (
- a as # a # as
- # own line
- b, # b # comma
+ a as ( # a # as
+ # own line
+ b
+ ), # b # comma
c, # c
): # colon
... # body
# body trailing own
-with (
- a as # a # as
+with a as ( # a # as
# own line
- bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb # b
-):
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
+): # b
pass
-with (a,): # magic trailing comma
+with (
+ a,
+): # magic trailing comma
...
@@ -47,6 +50,7 @@ with a: # should remove brackets
with aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb as c:
...
+
with (
# leading comment
a
@@ -74,8 +78,7 @@ with (
with (
a # trailing same line comment
# trailing own line comment
- as b
-):
+) as b:
...
with (
@@ -87,7 +90,9 @@ with (
with (
a
# trailing own line comment
-) as b: # trailing as same line comment # trailing b same line comment
+) as ( # trailing as same line comment
+ b
+): # trailing b same line comment
...
with (
@@ -124,18 +129,24 @@ with ( # comment
...
with ( # outer comment
- CtxManager1() as example1, # inner comment
+ ( # inner comment
+ CtxManager1()
+ ) as example1,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager3() as example3,
):
...
-with CtxManager() as example: # outer comment
+with ( # outer comment
+ CtxManager()
+) as example:
...
with ( # outer comment
CtxManager()
-) as example, CtxManager2() as example2: # inner comment
+) as example, ( # inner comment
+ CtxManager2()
+) as example2:
...
with ( # outer comment
@@ -145,7 +156,9 @@ with ( # outer comment
...
with ( # outer comment
- (CtxManager1()), # inner comment
+ ( # inner comment
+ CtxManager1()
+ ),
CtxManager2(),
) as example:
...
@@ -179,7 +192,9 @@ with (
):
pass
-with a as (b): # foo
+with a as ( # foo
+ b
+):
pass
with f(
@@ -209,17 +224,13 @@ with f(
) as b, c as d:
pass
-with (
- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
-) as b:
+with aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb as b:
pass
with aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb as b:
pass
-with (
- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
-) as b, c as d:
+with aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb as b, c as d:
pass
with (
@@ -230,6 +241,8 @@ with (
pass
with (
- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
-) as b, c as d:
+ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb as b,
+ c as d,
+):
pass
```
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6600.
## Test Plan
Before:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| cpython | 0.75473 |
| django | 0.99804 |
| transformers | 0.99618 |
| twine | 0.99876 |
| typeshed | 0.74292 |
| warehouse | 0.99601 |
| zulip | 0.99727 |
After:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| cpython | 0.75473 |
| django | 0.99804 |
| transformers | 0.99618 |
| twine | 0.99876 |
| typeshed | 0.74292 |
| warehouse | 0.99601 |
| zulip | 0.99727 |
`cargo test`
## Summary
Attaches comments around the `:=` operator in a named expression as
dangling, and formats them manually in the `named_expr.rs` formatter.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/5695.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6384, although I think
the issue was fixed already on main, for the most part.
The linked issue is around formatting expressions like:
```python
def test():
(
yield
#comment 1
* # comment 2
# comment 3
test # comment 4
)
```
On main, prior to this PR, we now format like:
```python
def test():
(
yield (
# comment 1
# comment 2
# comment 3
*test
) # comment 4
)
```
Which strikes me as reasonable. (We can't test this, since it's a syntax
error after for our parser, despite being a syntax error in both cases
from CPython's perspective.)
Meanwhile, Black does:
```python
def test():
(
yield
# comment 1
* # comment 2
# comment 3
test # comment 4
)
```
So our formatting differs in that we move comments between the star and
the expression above the star.
As of this PR, we also support formatting this input, which is valid:
```python
def test():
(
yield
#comment 1
* # comment 2
# comment 3
test, # comment 4
1
)
```
Like:
```python
def test():
(
yield (
# comment 1
(
# comment 2
# comment 3
*test, # comment 4
1,
)
)
)
```
There were two fixes here: (1) marking starred comments as dangling and
formatting them properly; and (2) supporting parenthesized comments for
tuples that don't contain their own parentheses, as is often the case
for yielded tuples (previously, we hit a debug assert).
Note that this diff
## Test Plan
cargo test
## Summary
This PR adds support for parenthesized comments. A parenthesized comment
is a comment that appears within a parenthesis, but not within the range
of the expression enclosed by the parenthesis. For example, the comment
here is a parenthesized comment:
```python
if (
# comment
True
):
...
```
The parentheses enclose the `True`, but the range of `True` doesn’t
include the `# comment`.
There are at least two problems associated with parenthesized comments:
(1) associating the comment with the correct (i.e., enclosed) node; and
(2) formatting the comment correctly, once it has been associated with
the enclosed node.
The solution proposed here for (1) is to search for parentheses between
preceding and following node, and use open and close parentheses to
break ties, rather than always assigning to the preceding node.
For (2), we handle these special parenthesized comments in `FormatExpr`.
The biggest risk with this approach is that we forget some codepath that
force-disables parenthesization (by passing in `Parentheses::Never`).
I've audited all usages of that enum and added additional handling +
test coverage for such cases.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6390.
## Test Plan
`cargo test` with new cases.
Before:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| build | 0.75623 |
| cpython | 0.75472 |
| django | 0.99804 |
| transformers | 0.99618 |
| typeshed | 0.74233 |
| warehouse | 0.99601 |
| zulip | 0.99727 |
After:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| build | 0.75623 |
| cpython | 0.75472 |
| django | 0.99804 |
| transformers | 0.99618 |
| typeshed | 0.74237 |
| warehouse | 0.99601 |
| zulip | 0.99727 |
## Summary
This PR adds handling for comments on open parentheses in parenthesized
context managers. For example, given:
```python
with ( # comment
CtxManager1() as example1,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager3() as example3,
):
...
```
We want to preserve that formatting. (Black does the same.) On `main`,
we format as:
```python
with (
# comment
CtxManager1() as example1,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager3() as example3,
):
...
```
It's very similar to how `StmtImportFrom` is handled.
Note that this case _isn't_ covered by the "parenthesized comment"
proposal, since this is a common on the statement that would typically
be attached to the first `WithItem`, and the `WithItem` _itself_ can
have parenthesized comments, like:
```python
with ( # comment
(
CtxManager1() # comment
) as example1,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager3() as example3,
):
...
```
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
Confirmed no change in similarity score.
## Summary
The bracketed-end-of-line comment rule is meant to assign comments like
this as "immediately following the bracket":
```python
f( # comment
1
)
```
However, the logic was such that we treated this equivalently:
```python
f(
( # comment
1
)
)
```
This PR modifies the placement logic to ensure that we only skip the
opening bracket, and not any nested brackets. The above is now formatted
as:
```python
f(
(
# comment
1
)
)
```
(But will be corrected once we handle parenthesized comments properly.)
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
Confirmed no change in similarity score.
**Summary** Implement docstring formatting
**Test Plan** Matches black's `docstring.py` fixture exactly, added some
new cases for what is hard to debug with black and with what black
doesn't cover.
similarity index:
main:
zulip: 0.99702
django: 0.99784
warehouse: 0.99585
build: 0.75623
transformers: 0.99469
cpython: 0.75989
typeshed: 0.74853
this branch:
zulip: 0.99702
django: 0.99784
warehouse: 0.99585
build: 0.75623
transformers: 0.99464
cpython: 0.75517
typeshed: 0.74853
The regression in transformers is actually an improvement in a file they
don't format with black (they run `black examples tests src utils
setup.py conftest.py`, the difference is in hubconf.py). cpython doesn't
use black.
Closes#6196
## Summary
This PR modifies our logic for wrapping return type annotations.
Previously, we _always_ wrapped the annotation in parentheses if it
expanded; however, Black only exhibits this behavior when the function
parameters is empty (i.e., it doesn't and can't break). In other cases,
it uses the normal parenthesization rules, allowing nodes to bring their
own parentheses.
For example, given:
```python
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx() -> Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]:
...
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(x) -> Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]:
...
```
Black will format as:
```python
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx() -> (
Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]
):
...
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(
x,
) -> Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]:
...
```
Whereas, prior to this PR, Ruff would format as:
```python
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx() -> (
Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]
):
...
def xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(
x,
) -> (
Set[
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
]
):
...
```
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6431.
## Test Plan
Before:
- `zulip`: 0.99702
- `django`: 0.99784
- `warehouse`: 0.99585
- `build`: 0.75623
- `transformers`: 0.99470
- `cpython`: 0.75988
- `typeshed`: 0.74853
After:
- `zulip`: 0.99724
- `django`: 0.99791
- `warehouse`: 0.99586
- `build`: 0.75623
- `transformers`: 0.99474
- `cpython`: 0.75956
- `typeshed`: 0.74857
## Summary
This PR fixes some misformattings around optional parentheses for
expressions.
I first noticed that we were misformatting this:
```python
return (
unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", s1).casefold()
== unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", s2).casefold()
)
```
The above is stable Black formatting, but we were doing:
```python
return unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", s1).casefold() == unicodedata.normalize(
"NFKC", s2
).casefold()
```
Above, the "last" expression is a function call, so our
`can_omit_optional_parentheses` was returning `true`...
However, it turns out that Black treats function calls differently
depending on whether or not they have arguments -- presumedly because
they'll never split empty parentheses, and so they're functionally
non-useful. On further investigation, I believe this applies to all
parenthesized expressions. If Black can't split on the parentheses, it
doesn't leverage them when removing optional parentheses.
## Test Plan
Nice increase in similarity scores.
Before:
- `zulip`: 0.99702
- `django`: 0.99784
- `warehouse`: 0.99585
- `build`: 0.75623
- `transformers`: 0.99470
- `cpython`: 0.75989
- `typeshed`: 0.74853
After:
- `zulip`: 0.99705
- `django`: 0.99795
- `warehouse`: 0.99600
- `build`: 0.75623
- `transformers`: 0.99471
- `cpython`: 0.75989
- `typeshed`: 0.74853
## Summary
This PR adds formatting support for `MatchCase` node with subs for the
`Pattern`
nodes.
## Test Plan
Added test cases for case node handling with comments, newlines.
resolves: #6299
## Summary
The bug was happening in this
[loop](75f402eb82/crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/comments/placement.rs (L545)).
Basically, In the first iteration of the loop, the `comment_indentation`
is bigger than `child_indentation` (`comment_indentation` is 7 and
`child_indentation` is 4) making the `Ordering::Greater` branch execute.
Inside the `Ordering::Greater` branch, the `if` block gets executed,
resulting in the update of these variables.
```rust
parent_body = current_body;
current_body = Some(last_child_in_current_body);
last_child_in_current_body = nested_child;
```
In the second iteration of the loop, `comment_indentation` is smaller
than `child_indentation` (`comment_indentation` is 7 and
`child_indentation` is 8) making the `Ordering::Less` branch execute.
Inside the `Ordering::Less` branch, the `if` block gets executed, this
is where the bug was happening. At this point `parent_body` should be a
`StmtFunctionDef` but it was a `StmtClassDef`. Causing the comment to be
incorrectly formatted.
That happened for the following code:
```python
class A:
def f():
pass
# strangely indented comment
print()
```
There is only one problem that I couldn't figure it out a solution, the
variable `current_body` in this
[line](75f402eb82/crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/comments/placement.rs (L542C5-L542C49))
now gives this warning _"value assigned to `current_body` is never read
maybe it is overwritten before being read?"_
Any tips on how to solve that?
Closes#5337
## Test Plan
Add new test case.
---------
Co-authored-by: konstin <konstin@mailbox.org>
**Summary** I collected all examples of end-of-line comments after
opening parentheses that i could think of so we get a comprehensive view
at the state of their formatting (#6390).
This PR intentionally only adds tests cases without any changes in
formatting. We need to decide which exact formatting we want, ideally in
terms of these test files, and implement this in follow-up PRs.
~~One stability check is still deactivated pending
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/6386.~~
<!--
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 fixes the issue where the FString formatting dropped dangling comments between the string parts.
```python
result_f = (
f' File "{__file__}", line {lineno_f+1}, in f\n'
' f()\n'
# XXX: The following line changes depending on whether the tests
# are run through the interactive interpreter or with -m
# It also varies depending on the platform (stack size)
# Fortunately, we don't care about exactness here, so we use regex
r' \[Previous line repeated (\d+) more times\]' '\n'
'RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceeded\n'
)
```
The solution here isn't ideal because it re-introduces the `enclosing_parent` on `DecoratedComment` but it is the easiest fix that I could come up.
I didn't spend more time finding another solution becaues I think we have to re-write most of the fstring formatting with the upcoming Python 3.12 support (because lexing the individual parts as we do now will no longer work).
closes#6440
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
The child PR testing that all comments are formatted should now pass
## Summary
This PR removes the group around function definition parameters, instead
grouping the parameters with the type parameters and return type
annotation.
This increases Zulip's similarity score from 0.99385 to 0.99699, so it's
a meaningful improvement. However, there's at least one stability error
that I'm working on, and I'm really just looking for high-level feedback
at this point, because I'm not happy with the solution.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6352.
## Test Plan
Before:
- `zulip`: 0.99396
- `django`: 0.99784
- `warehouse`: 0.99578
- `build`: 0.75436
- `transformers`: 0.99407
- `cpython`: 0.75987
- `typeshed`: 0.74432
After:
- `zulip`: 0.99702
- `django`: 0.99784
- `warehouse`: 0.99585
- `build`: 0.75623
- `transformers`: 0.99470
- `cpython`: 0.75988
- `typeshed`: 0.74853
## Summary
Given:
```python
def double(a: int) -> ( # Hello
int
):
return 2*a
```
We currently treat `# Hello` as a trailing comment on the parameters
(`(a: int)`). This PR adds a placement method to instead treat it as a
dangling comment on the function definition itself, so that it gets
formatted at the end of the definition, like:
```python
def double(a: int) -> int: # Hello
return 2*a
```
The formatting in this case is unchanged, but it's incorrect IMO for
that to be a trailing comment on the parameters, and that placement
leads to an instability after changing the grouping in #6410.
Fixing this led to a _different_ instability related to tuple return
type annotations, like:
```python
def zrevrangebylex(self, name: _Key, max: _Value, min: _Value, start: int | None = None, num: int | None = None) -> ( # type: ignore[override]
):
...
```
(This is a real example.)
To fix, I had to special-case tuples in that spot, though I'm not
certain that's correct.
## Summary
This PR adds support for `StmtMatch` with subs for `MatchCase`.
## Test Plan
Add a few additional test cases around `match` statement, comments, line
breaks.
resolves: #6298
## Bug
Given
```python
x = () - (#
)
```
the comment is a dangling comment of the empty tuple. This is an
end-of-line comment so it may move after the expression. It still
expands the parent, so the operator breaks:
```python
x = (
()
- () #
)
```
In the next formatting pass, the comment is not a trailing tuple but a
trailing bin op comment, so the bin op doesn't break anymore. The
comment again expands the parent, so we still add the superfluous
parentheses
```python
x = (
() - () #
)
```
## Fix
The new formatting is to keep the comment on the empty tuple. This is a
log uglier and again has additional outer parentheses, but it's stable:
```python
x = (
()
- ( #
)
)
```
## Alternatives
Black formats all the examples above as
```python
x = () - () #
```
which i find better.
I would be happy about any suggestions for better solutions than the
current one. I'd mainly need a workaround for expand parent having an
effect on the bin op instead of first moving the comment to the end and
then applying expand parent to the assign statement.
## Summary
I noticed some deviations in how we treat dangling comments that hug the
opening parenthesis for function definitions.
For example, given:
```python
def f( # first
# second
): # third
...
```
We currently format as:
```python
def f(
# first
# second
): # third
...
```
This PR adds the proper opening-parenthesis dangling comment handling
for function parameters. Specifically, as with all other parenthesized
nodes, we now detect that dangling comment in `placement.rs` and handle
it in `parameters.rs`. We have to take some care in that file, since we
have multiple "kinds" of dangling comments, but I added a bunch of test
cases that we now format identically to Black.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
Before:
- `zulip`: 0.99388
- `django`: 0.99784
- `warehouse`: 0.99504
- `transformers`: 0.99404
- `cpython`: 0.75913
- `typeshed`: 0.74364
After:
- `zulip`: 0.99386
- `django`: 0.99784
- `warehouse`: 0.99504
- `transformers`: 0.99404
- `cpython`: 0.75913
- `typeshed`: 0.74409
Meaningful improvement on `typeshed`, minor decrease on `zulip`.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6068
These commits are kind of a mess as I did some stumbling around here.
Unrolls formatting of chained boolean operations to prevent nested
grouping which gives us Black-compatible formatting where each boolean
operation is on a new line.
## Summary
This PR modifies our `can_omit_optional_parentheses` rules to ensure
that if we see a call followed by an attribute, we treat that as an
attribute access rather than a splittable call expression.
This in turn ensures that we wrap like:
```python
ct_match = aaaaaaaaaaact_id == self.get_content_type(
obj=rel_obj, using=instance._state.db
)
```
For calls, but:
```python
ct_match = (
aaaaaaaaaaact_id == self.get_content_type(obj=rel_obj, using=instance._state.db).id
)
```
For calls with trailing attribute accesses.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6065.
## Test Plan
Similarity index before:
- `zulip`: 0.99436
- `django`: 0.99779
- `warehouse`: 0.99504
- `transformers`: 0.99403
- `cpython`: 0.75912
- `typeshed`: 0.72293
And after:
- `zulip`: 0.99436
- `django`: 0.99780
- `warehouse`: 0.99504
- `transformers`: 0.99404
- `cpython`: 0.75913
- `typeshed`: 0.72293
## Summary
Given:
```python
[ # comment
first,
second,
third
] # another comment
```
We were adding a hard line break as part of the formatting of `#
comment`, which led to the following formatting:
```python
[first, second, third] # comment
# another comment
```
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6367.
## Summary
Fixes an instability whereby this:
```python
def get_recent_deployments(threshold_days: int) -> Set[str]:
# Returns a list of deployments not older than threshold days
# including `/root/zulip` directory if it exists.
recent = set()
threshold_date = datetime.datetime.now() - datetime.timedelta( # noqa: DTZ005
days=threshold_days
)
```
Was being formatted as:
```python
def get_recent_deployments(threshold_days: int) -> Set[str]:
# Returns a list of deployments not older than threshold days
# including `/root/zulip` directory if it exists.
recent = set()
threshold_date = (
datetime.datetime.now()
- datetime.timedelta(days=threshold_days) # noqa: DTZ005
)
```
Which was in turn being formatted as:
```python
def get_recent_deployments(threshold_days: int) -> Set[str]:
# Returns a list of deployments not older than threshold days
# including `/root/zulip` directory if it exists.
recent = set()
threshold_date = (
datetime.datetime.now() - datetime.timedelta(days=threshold_days) # noqa: DTZ005
)
```
The second-to-third formattings still differs from Black because we
aren't taking the line suffix into account when splitting
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6377), but the first
formatting is correct and should be unchanged (i.e., the first-to-second
formattings is incorrect, and fixed here).
## Test Plan
`cargo run --bin ruff_dev -- format-dev --stability-check ../zulip`
