This _probably_ never matters given the set of rules we support and in
fact I'm having trouble thinking of a test-case for it, but it's
definitely incorrect _not_ to pass on the `BranchId` here.
## Summary
We have a few rules that rely on detecting whether two statements are in
different branches -- for example, different arms of an `if`-`else`.
Historically, the way this was implemented is that, given two statement
IDs, we'd find the common parent (by traversing upwards via our
`Statements` abstraction); then identify branches "manually" by matching
the parents against `try`, `if`, and `match`, and returning iterators
over the arms; then check if there's an arm for which one of the
statements is a child, and the other is not.
This has a few drawbacks:
1. First, the code is generally a bit hard to follow (Konsti mentioned
this too when working on the `ElifElseClause` refactor).
2. Second, this is the only place in the codebase where we need to go
from `&Stmt` to `StatementID` -- _everywhere_ else, we only need to go
in the _other_ direction. Supporting these lookups means we need to
maintain a mapping from `&Stmt` to `StatementID` that includes every
`&Stmt` in the program. (We _also_ end up maintaining a `depth` level
for every statement.) I'd like to get rid of these requirements to
improve efficiency, reduce complexity, and enable us to treat AST modes
more generically in the future. (When I looked at adding the `&Expr` to
our existing statement-tracking infrastructure, maintaining a hash map
with all the statements noticeably hurt performance.)
The solution implemented here instead makes branches a first-class
concept in the semantic model. Like with `Statements`, we now have a
`Branches` abstraction, where each branch points to its optional parent.
When we store statements, we store the `BranchID` alongside each
statement. When we need to detect whether two statements are in the same
branch, we just realize each statement's branch path and compare the
two. (Assuming that the two statements are in the same scope, then
they're on the same branch IFF one branch path is a subset of the other,
starting from the top.) We then add some calls to the visitor to push
and pop branches in the appropriate places, for `if`, `try`, and `match`
statements.
Note that a branch is not 1:1 with a statement; instead, each branch is
closer to a suite, but not _every_ suite is a branch. For example, each
arm in an `if`-`elif`-`else` is a branch, but the `else` in a `for` loop
is not considered a branch.
In addition to being much simpler, this should also be more efficient,
since we've shed the entire `&Stmt` hash map, plus the `depth` that we
track on `StatementWithParent` in favor of a single `Option<BranchID>`
on `StatementWithParent` plus a single vector for all branches. The
lookups should be faster too, since instead of doing a bunch of jumps
around with the hash map + repeated recursive calls to find the common
parents, we instead just do a few simple lookups in the `Branches`
vector to realize and compare the branch paths.
## Test Plan
`cargo test` -- we have a lot of coverage for this, which we inherited
from PyFlakes
## Summary
This is much simpler and avoids (1) multiple passes over the entire
function body, (2) requiring the rule to do its own binding tracking (we
can just use the semantic model), and (3) a usage of `StatementKey`.
In general, where we can, we should try to remove these kinds of custom
visitors that track name references, and instead rely on the semantic
model.
## 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
In working on https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/6628, I noticed
that we clone the source code contents, potentially multiple times,
prior to linting. The issue is that `SourceKind::Python` takes a
`String`, so we first have to provide it with a `String`. In the stdin
case, that means cloning. However, on top of this, we then have to clone
`source_kind.contents()` because `SourceKind` gets mutated. So for
stdin, we end up cloning twice. For non-stdin, we end up cloning once,
but unnecessarily (since the _contents_ don't get mutated, only the
kind).
This PR removes the `String` from `source_kind`, instead requiring that
we parse it out elsewhere. It reduces the number of clones down to 1 for
Jupyter Notebooks, and zero otherwise.
## 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
This PR exposes our `is_expression_parenthesized` logic such that we can
use it to expand expressions when autofixing to include their
parenthesized ranges.
This solution has a few drawbacks: (1) we need to compute parenthesized
ranges in more places, which also relies on backwards lexing; and (2) we
need to make use of this in any relevant fixes.
However, I still think it's worth pursuing. On (1), the implementation
is very contained, so IMO we can easily swap this out for a more
performant solution in the future if needed. On (2), this improves
correctness and fixes some bad syntax errors detected by fuzzing, which
means it has value even if it's not as robust as an _actual_
`ParenthesizedExpression` node in the AST itself.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/4925.
## Test Plan
`cargo test` with new cases that previously failed the fuzzer.
## Summary
I noticed some inconsistencies around uses of `.range.start()`, structs
that have a `TextRange` field but don't implement `Ranged`, etc.
## 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`
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6442
Python string formatting like `"hello {place}".format(place="world")`
supports format specifications for replaced content such as `"hello
{place:>10}".format(place="world")` which will align the text to the
right in a container filled up to ten characters.
Ruff parses formatted strings into `FormatPart`s each of which is either
a `Field` (content in `{...}`) or a `Literal` (the normal content).
Fields are parsed into name and format specifier sections (we'll ignore
conversion specifiers for now).
There are a myriad of specifiers that can be used in a `FormatSpec`.
Unfortunately for linters, the specifier values can be dynamically set.
For example, `"hello {place:{align}{width}}".format(place="world",
align=">", width=10)` and `"hello {place:{fmt}}".format(place="world",
fmt=">10")` will yield the same string as before but variables can be
used to determine the formatting. In this case, when parsing the format
specifier we can't know what _kind_ of specifier is being used as their
meaning is determined by both position and value.
Ruff does not support nested replacements and our current data model
does not support the concept. Here the data model is updated to support
this concept, although linting of specifications with replacements will
be inherently limited. We could split format specifications into two
types, one without any replacements that we can perform lints with and
one with replacements that we cannot inspect. However, it seems
excessive to drop all parsing of format specifiers due to the presence
of a replacement. Instead, I've opted to parse replacements eagerly and
ignore their possible effect on other format specifiers. This will allow
us to retain a simple interface for `FormatSpec` and most syntax checks.
We may need to add some handling to relax errors if a replacement was
seen previously.
It's worth noting that the nested replacement _can_ also include a
format specification although it may fail at runtime if you produce an
invalid outer format specification. For example, `"hello
{place:{fmt:<2}}".format(place="world", fmt=">10")` is valid so we need
to represent each nested replacement as a full `FormatPart`.
## Test plan
Adding unit tests for `FormatSpec` parsing and snapshots for PLE1300
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
Support glob patterns for `raises_require_match_for` and
`raises_require_match_for`. Resolve#6473
## Test Plan
New tests + existing tests
## Summary
No behavior changes, but these need some refactoring to support
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/6575 (namely, they need to take
the `ast::ExprCompare` or similar node instead of the attribute fields),
and I don't want to muddy that PR.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Ensures we avoid cases like:
```python
x.values = 1
```
Since Pandas doesn't even expose a setter for that. We also avoid cases
like:
```python
print(self.values)
```
Since it's overwhelming likely to be a false positive.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6630.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
When running Ruff from stdin, we were always falling back to the default
source type, even if the user specified a path (as is the case when
running from the LSP). This PR wires up the source type inference, which
means we now get the expected result when checking `.pyi` and `.ipynb`
files.
Closes#6627.
## Test Plan
Verified that `cat
crates/ruff/resources/test/fixtures/jupyter/valid.ipynb | cargo run -p
ruff_cli -- --force-exclude --no-cache --no-fix --isolated --select ALL
--stdin-filename foo.ipynb -` yielded the expected results (and differs
from the errors you get if you omit the filename).
Verified that `cat foo.pyi | cargo run -p ruff_cli -- --force-exclude
--no-cache --no-fix --format json --isolated --select TCH
--stdin-filename path/to/foo.pyi -` yielded no errors.
In https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/6616 we are adding support for
nested replacements in format specifiers which makes actually formatting
strings infeasible without a great deal of complexity. Since we're not
using these functions (they just exist for runtime use in RustPython),
we can just remove them.
## 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
