## Summary
At present, when we store a binding, we include a `TextRange` alongside
it. The `TextRange` _sometimes_ matches the exact range of the
identifier to which the `Binding` is linked, but... not always.
For example, given:
```python
x = 1
```
The binding we create _will_ use the range of `x`, because the left-hand
side is an `Expr::Name`, which has a valid range on it.
However, given:
```python
try:
pass
except ValueError as e:
pass
```
When we create a binding for `e`, we don't have a `TextRange`... The AST
doesn't give us one. So we end up extracting it via lexing.
This PR extends that pattern to the rest of the binding kinds, to ensure
that whenever we create a binding, we always use the range of the bound
name. This leads to better diagnostics in cases like pattern matching,
whereby the diagnostic for "unused variable `x`" here used to include
`*x`, instead of just `x`:
```python
def f(provided: int) -> int:
match provided:
case [_, *x]:
pass
```
This is _also_ required for symbol renames, since we track writes as
bindings -- so we need to know the ranges of the bound symbols.
By storing these bindings precisely, we can also remove the
`binding.trimmed_range` abstraction -- since bindings already use the
"trimmed range".
To implement this behavior, I took some of our existing utilities (like
the code we had for `except ValueError as e` above), migrated them from
a full lexer to a zero-allocation lexer that _only_ identifies
"identifiers", and moved the behavior into a trait, so we can now do
`stmt.identifier(locator)` to get the range for the identifier.
Honestly, we might end up discarding much of this if we decide to put
ranges on all identifiers
(https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/8). But even if we
do, this will _still_ be a good change, because the lexer introduced
here is useful beyond names (e.g., we use it find the `except` keyword
in an exception handler, to find the `else` after a `for` loop, and so
on). So, I'm fine committing this even if we end up changing our minds
about the right approach.
Closes#5090.
## Benchmarks
No significant change, with one statistically significant improvement
(-2.1654% on `linter/all-rules/large/dataset.py`):
```
linter/default-rules/numpy/globals.py
time: [73.922 µs 73.955 µs 73.986 µs]
thrpt: [39.882 MiB/s 39.898 MiB/s 39.916 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-0.5579% -0.4732% -0.3980%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
thrpt: [+0.3996% +0.4755% +0.5611%]
Change within noise threshold.
Found 6 outliers among 100 measurements (6.00%)
4 (4.00%) low severe
1 (1.00%) low mild
1 (1.00%) high mild
linter/default-rules/pydantic/types.py
time: [1.4909 ms 1.4917 ms 1.4926 ms]
thrpt: [17.087 MiB/s 17.096 MiB/s 17.106 MiB/s]
change:
time: [+0.2140% +0.2741% +0.3392%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
thrpt: [-0.3380% -0.2734% -0.2136%]
Change within noise threshold.
Found 4 outliers among 100 measurements (4.00%)
3 (3.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe
linter/default-rules/numpy/ctypeslib.py
time: [688.97 µs 691.34 µs 694.15 µs]
thrpt: [23.988 MiB/s 24.085 MiB/s 24.168 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-1.3282% -0.7298% -0.1466%] (p = 0.02 < 0.05)
thrpt: [+0.1468% +0.7351% +1.3461%]
Change within noise threshold.
Found 15 outliers among 100 measurements (15.00%)
1 (1.00%) low mild
2 (2.00%) high mild
12 (12.00%) high severe
linter/default-rules/large/dataset.py
time: [3.3872 ms 3.4032 ms 3.4191 ms]
thrpt: [11.899 MiB/s 11.954 MiB/s 12.011 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-0.6427% -0.2635% +0.0906%] (p = 0.17 > 0.05)
thrpt: [-0.0905% +0.2642% +0.6469%]
No change in performance detected.
Found 20 outliers among 100 measurements (20.00%)
1 (1.00%) low severe
2 (2.00%) low mild
4 (4.00%) high mild
13 (13.00%) high severe
linter/all-rules/numpy/globals.py
time: [148.99 µs 149.21 µs 149.42 µs]
thrpt: [19.748 MiB/s 19.776 MiB/s 19.805 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-0.7340% -0.5068% -0.2778%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
thrpt: [+0.2785% +0.5094% +0.7395%]
Change within noise threshold.
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
1 (1.00%) low mild
1 (1.00%) high severe
linter/all-rules/pydantic/types.py
time: [3.0362 ms 3.0396 ms 3.0441 ms]
thrpt: [8.3779 MiB/s 8.3903 MiB/s 8.3997 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-0.0957% +0.0618% +0.2125%] (p = 0.45 > 0.05)
thrpt: [-0.2121% -0.0618% +0.0958%]
No change in performance detected.
Found 11 outliers among 100 measurements (11.00%)
1 (1.00%) low severe
3 (3.00%) low mild
5 (5.00%) high mild
2 (2.00%) high severe
linter/all-rules/numpy/ctypeslib.py
time: [1.6879 ms 1.6894 ms 1.6909 ms]
thrpt: [9.8478 MiB/s 9.8562 MiB/s 9.8652 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-0.2279% -0.0888% +0.0436%] (p = 0.18 > 0.05)
thrpt: [-0.0435% +0.0889% +0.2284%]
No change in performance detected.
Found 5 outliers among 100 measurements (5.00%)
4 (4.00%) low mild
1 (1.00%) high severe
linter/all-rules/large/dataset.py
time: [7.1520 ms 7.1586 ms 7.1654 ms]
thrpt: [5.6777 MiB/s 5.6831 MiB/s 5.6883 MiB/s]
change:
time: [-2.5626% -2.1654% -1.7780%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
thrpt: [+1.8102% +2.2133% +2.6300%]
Performance has improved.
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
1 (1.00%) low mild
1 (1.00%) high mild
```
## Summary
`ruff_newlines` becomes `ruff_python_whitespace`, and includes the
existing "universal newline" handlers alongside the Python
whitespace-specific utilities.
<!--
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 issue fixes the removal of empty lines between a leading comment and the previous statement:
```python
a = 20
# leading comment
b = 10
```
Ruff removed the empty line between `a` and `b` because:
* The leading comments formatting does not preserve leading newlines (to avoid adding new lines at the top of a body)
* The `JoinNodesBuilder` counted the lines before `b`, which is 1 -> Doesn't insert a new line
This is fixed by changing the `JoinNodesBuilder` to count the lines instead *after* the last node. This correctly gives 1, and the `# leading comment` will insert the empty lines between any other leading comment or the node.
## Test Plan
I added a new test for empty lines.
# Summary
This PR contains the code for the autoformatter proof-of-concept.
## Crate structure
The primary formatting hook is the `fmt` function in `crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/lib.rs`.
The current formatter approach is outlined in `crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/lib.rs`, and is structured as follows:
- Tokenize the code using the RustPython lexer.
- In `crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/trivia.rs`, extract a variety of trivia tokens from the token stream. These include comments, trailing commas, and empty lines.
- Generate the AST via the RustPython parser.
- In `crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/cst.rs`, convert the AST to a CST structure. As of now, the CST is nearly identical to the AST, except that every node gets a `trivia` vector. But we might want to modify it further.
- In `crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/attachment.rs`, attach each trivia token to the corresponding CST node. The logic for this is mostly in `decorate_trivia` and is ported almost directly from Prettier (given each token, find its preceding, following, and enclosing nodes, then attach the token to the appropriate node in a second pass).
- In `crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/newlines.rs`, normalize newlines to match Black’s preferences. This involves traversing the CST and inserting or removing `TriviaToken` values as we go.
- Call `format!` on the CST, which delegates to type-specific formatter implementations (e.g., `crates/ruff_python_formatter/src/format/stmt.rs` for `Stmt` nodes, and similar for `Expr` nodes; the others are trivial). Those type-specific implementations delegate to kind-specific functions (e.g., `format_func_def`).
## Testing and iteration
The formatter is being developed against the Black test suite, which was copied over in-full to `crates/ruff_python_formatter/resources/test/fixtures/black`.
The Black fixtures had to be modified to create `[insta](https://github.com/mitsuhiko/insta)`-compatible snapshots, which now exist in the repo.
My approach thus far has been to try and improve coverage by tackling fixtures one-by-one.
## What works, and what doesn’t
- *Most* nodes are supported at a basic level (though there are a few stragglers at time of writing, like `StmtKind::Try`).
- Newlines are properly preserved in most cases.
- Magic trailing commas are properly preserved in some (but not all) cases.
- Trivial leading and trailing standalone comments mostly work (although maybe not at the end of a file).
- Inline comments, and comments within expressions, often don’t work -- they work in a few cases, but it’s one-off right now. (We’re probably associating them with the “right” nodes more often than we are actually rendering them in the right place.)
- We don’t properly normalize string quotes. (At present, we just repeat any constants verbatim.)
- We’re mishandling a bunch of wrapping cases (if we treat Black as the reference implementation). Here are a few examples (demonstrating Black's stable behavior):
```py
# In some cases, if the end expression is "self-closing" (functions,
# lists, dictionaries, sets, subscript accesses, and any length-two
# boolean operations that end in these elments), Black
# will wrap like this...
if some_expression and f(
b,
c,
d,
):
pass
# ...whereas we do this:
if (
some_expression
and f(
b,
c,
d,
)
):
pass
# If function arguments can fit on a single line, then Black will
# format them like this, rather than exploding them vertically.
if f(
a, b, c, d, e, f, g, ...
):
pass
```
- We don’t properly preserve parentheses in all cases. Black preserves parentheses in some but not all cases.
