## Summary
This PR updates the parser definition to use the precise location when reporting
an invalid f-string conversion flag error.
Taking the following example code:
```python
f"{foo!x}"
```
On earlier version,
```
Error: f-string: invalid conversion character at byte offset 6
```
Now,
```
Error: f-string: invalid conversion character at byte offset 7
```
This becomes more useful when there's whitespace between `!` and the flag value
although that is not valid but we can't detect that now.
## Test Plan
As mentioned above.
## Summary
This is a follow-up to #7469 that attempts to achieve similar gains, but
without introducing malachite. Instead, this PR removes the `BigInt`
type altogether, instead opting for a simple enum that allows us to
store small integers directly and only allocate for values greater than
`i64`:
```rust
/// A Python integer literal. Represents both small (fits in an `i64`) and large integers.
#[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
pub struct Int(Number);
#[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
pub enum Number {
/// A "small" number that can be represented as an `i64`.
Small(i64),
/// A "large" number that cannot be represented as an `i64`.
Big(Box<str>),
}
impl std::fmt::Display for Number {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut std::fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
match self {
Number::Small(value) => write!(f, "{value}"),
Number::Big(value) => write!(f, "{value}"),
}
}
}
```
We typically don't care about numbers greater than `isize` -- our only
uses are comparisons against small constants (like `1`, `2`, `3`, etc.),
so there's no real loss of information, except in one or two rules where
we're now a little more conservative (with the worst-case being that we
don't flag, e.g., an `itertools.pairwise` that uses an extremely large
value for the slice start constant). For simplicity, a few diagnostics
now show a dedicated message when they see integers that are out of the
supported range (e.g., `outdated-version-block`).
An additional benefit here is that we get to remove a few dependencies,
especially `num-bigint`.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This is only used for the `level` field in relative imports (e.g., `from
..foo import bar`). It seems unnecessary to use a wrapper here, so this
PR changes to a `u32` directly.
## Summary
This PR attempts to address a problem in the parser related to the
range's of `WithItem` nodes in certain contexts -- specifically,
`WithItem` nodes in parentheses that do not have an `as` token after
them.
For example,
[here](https://play.ruff.rs/71be2d0b-2a04-4c7e-9082-e72bff152679):
```python
with (a, b):
pass
```
The range of the `WithItem` `a` is set to the range of `(a, b)`, as is
the range of the `WithItem` `b`. In other words, when we have this kind
of sequence, we use the range of the entire parenthesized context,
rather than the ranges of the items themselves.
Note that this also applies to cases
[like](https://play.ruff.rs/c551e8e9-c3db-4b74-8cc6-7c4e3bf3713a):
```python
with (a, b, c as d):
pass
```
You can see the issue in the parser here:
```rust
#[inline]
WithItemsNoAs: Vec<ast::WithItem> = {
<location:@L> <all:OneOrMore<Test<"all">>> <end_location:@R> => {
all.into_iter().map(|context_expr| ast::WithItem { context_expr, optional_vars: None, range: (location..end_location).into() }).collect()
},
}
```
Fixing this issue is... very tricky. The naive approach is to use the
range of the `context_expr` as the range for the `WithItem`, but that
range will be incorrect when the `context_expr` is itself parenthesized.
For example, _that_ solution would fail here, since the range of the
first `WithItem` would be that of `a`, rather than `(a)`:
```python
with ((a), b):
pass
```
The `with` parsing in general is highly precarious due to ambiguities in
the grammar. Changing it in _any_ way seems to lead to an ambiguous
grammar that LALRPOP fails to translate. Consensus seems to be that we
don't really understand _why_ the current grammar works (i.e., _how_ it
avoids these ambiguities as-is).
The solution implemented here is to avoid changing the grammar itself,
and instead change the shape of the nodes returned by various rules in
the grammar. Specifically, everywhere that we return `Expr`, we instead
return `ParenthesizedExpr`, which includes a parenthesized range and the
underlying `Expr` itself. (If an `Expr` isn't parenthesized, the ranges
will be equivalent.) In `WithItemsNoAs`, we can then use the
parenthesized range as the range for the `WithItem`.
## Summary
The motivation here is that this enables us to implement `Ranged` in
crates that don't depend on `ruff_python_ast`.
Largely a mechanical refactor with a lot of regex, Clippy help, and
manual fixups.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR introduces two new AST nodes to improve the representation of
`PatternMatchClass`. As a reminder, `PatternMatchClass` looks like this:
```python
case Point2D(0, 0, x=1, y=2):
...
```
Historically, this was represented as a vector of patterns (for the `0,
0` portion) and parallel vectors of keyword names (for `x` and `y`) and
values (for `1` and `2`). This introduces a bunch of challenges for the
formatter, but importantly, it's also really different from how we
represent similar nodes, like arguments (`func(0, 0, x=1, y=2)`) or
parameters (`def func(x, y)`).
So, firstly, we now use a single node (`PatternArguments`) for the
entire parenthesized region, making it much more consistent with our
other nodes. So, above, `PatternArguments` would be `(0, 0, x=1, y=2)`.
Secondly, we now have a `PatternKeyword` node for `x=1` and `y=2`. This
is much more similar to the how `Keyword` is represented within
`Arguments` for call expressions.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6866.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6880.
## 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
Given:
```python
if (
x
:=
( # 4
y # 5
) # 6
):
pass
```
It turns out the parser ended the range of the `NamedExpr` at the end of
`y`, rather than the end of the parenthesis that encloses `y`. This just
seems like a bug -- the range should be from the start of the name on
the left, to the end of the parenthesized node on the right.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Instead, we set an `is_star` flag on `Stmt::Try`. This is similar to the
pattern we've migrated towards for `Stmt::For` (removing
`Stmt::AsyncFor`) and friends. While these are significant differences
for an interpreter, we tend to handle these cases identically or nearly
identically.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## 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 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? -->
