Closes#19350
This fixes a syntax error caused by formatting. However, the new tests reveal that there are some cases where formatting attributes with certain comments behaves strangely, both before and after this PR, so some more polish may be in order.
For example, without parentheses around the value, and both before and after this PR, we have:
```python
# unformatted
variable = (
something # a comment
.first_method("some string")
)
# formatted
variable = something.first_method("some string") # a comment
```
which is probably not where the comment ought to go.
This PR attempts to improve the placement of own-line comments between
branches in the setting where the comment is more indented than the
preceding node.
There are two main changes.
### First change: Preceding node has leading content
If the preceding node has leading content, we now regard the comment as
automatically _less_ indented than the preceding node, and format
accordingly.
For example,
```python
if True: preceding_node
# leading on `else`, not trailing on `preceding_node`
else: ...
```
This is more compatible with `black`, although there is a (presumably
very uncommon) edge case:
```python
if True:
this;that
# leading on `else`, but trailing in `black`
else: ...
```
I'm sort of okay with this - presumably if one wanted a comment for
those semi-colon separated statements, one should have put it _above_
them, and one wanted a comment only for `that` then it ought to have
been on the same line?
### Second change: searching for last child in body
While searching for the (recursively) last child in the body of the
preceding _branch_, we implicitly assumed that the preceding node had to
have a body to begin the recursion. But actually, in the base case, the
preceding node _is_ the last child in the body of the preceding branch.
So, for example:
```python
if True:
something
last_child_but_no_body
# leading on else for `main` but trailing in this PR
else: ...
```
### More examples
The table below is an attempt to summarize the changes in behavior. The
rows alternate between an example snippet with `while` and the same
example with `if` - in the former case we do _not_ have an `else` node
and in the latter we do.
Notice that:
1. On `main` our handling of `if` vs. `while` is not consistent, whereas
it is consistent in the present PR
2. We disagree with `black` in all cases except that last example on
`main`, but agree in all cases for the present PR (though see above for
a wonky edge case where we disagree).
<table>
<tr>
<th>Original
</th>
<th><code>main</code> </th>
<th>This
PR </th>
<th><code>black</code> </th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True:
pass
else:
# comment
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True: pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True: pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True: pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True:
pass
else:
# comment
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
while True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True: pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
<td>
<pre lang="python">
if True:
pass
# comment
else:
pass
</pre>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
Summary
--
This PR fixes#17796 by taking the approach mentioned in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/17796#issuecomment-2847943862
of simply recursing into the `MatchAs` patterns when checking if we need
parentheses. This allows us to reuse the parentheses in the inner
pattern before also breaking the `MatchAs` pattern itself:
```diff
match class_pattern:
case Class(xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) as capture:
pass
- case (
- Class(xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) as capture
- ):
+ case Class(
+ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+ ) as capture:
pass
- case (
- Class(
- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- ) as capture
- ):
+ case Class(
+ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+ ) as capture:
pass
case (
Class(
@@ -685,13 +683,11 @@
match sequence_pattern_brackets:
case [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] as capture:
pass
- case (
- [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] as capture
- ):
+ case [
+ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+ ] as capture:
pass
- case (
- [
- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- ] as capture
- ):
+ case [
+ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+ ] as capture:
pass
```
I haven't really resolved the question of whether or not it's okay
always to recurse, but I'm hoping the ecosystem check on this PR might
shed some light on that.
Test Plan
--
New tests based on the issue and then reviewing the ecosystem check here
Summary
--
This is a first step toward fixing #9745. After reviewing our open
issues and several Black issues and PRs, I personally found the function
case the most compelling, especially with very long argument lists:
```py
def func(
self,
arg1: int,
arg2: bool,
arg3: bool,
arg4: float,
arg5: bool,
) -> tuple[...]:
if arg2 and arg3:
raise ValueError
```
or many annotations:
```py
def function(
self, data: torch.Tensor | tuple[torch.Tensor, ...], other_argument: int
) -> torch.Tensor | tuple[torch.Tensor, ...]:
do_something(data)
return something
```
I think docstrings help the situation substantially both because syntax
highlighting will usually give a very clear separation between the
annotations and the docstring and because we already allow a blank line
_after_ the docstring:
```py
def function(
self, data: torch.Tensor | tuple[torch.Tensor, ...], other_argument: int
) -> torch.Tensor | tuple[torch.Tensor, ...]:
"""
A function doing something.
And a longer description of the things it does.
"""
do_something(data)
return something
```
There are still other comments on #9745, such as [this one] with 9
upvotes, where users specifically request blank lines in all block
types, or at least including conditionals and loops. I'm sympathetic to
that case as well, even if personally I don't find an [example] like
this:
```py
if blah:
# Do some stuff that is logically related
data = get_data()
# Do some different stuff that is logically related
results = calculate_results()
return results
```
to be much more readable than:
```py
if blah:
# Do some stuff that is logically related
data = get_data()
# Do some different stuff that is logically related
results = calculate_results()
return results
```
I'm probably just used to the latter from the formatters I've used, but
I do prefer it. I also think that functions are the least susceptible to
the accidental introduction of a newline after refactoring described in
Micha's [comment] on #8893.
I actually considered further restricting this change to functions with
multiline headers. I don't think very short functions like:
```py
def foo():
return 1
```
benefit nearly as much from the allowed newline, but I just went with
any function without a docstring for now. I guess a marginal case like:
```py
def foo(a_long_parameter: ALongType, b_long_parameter: BLongType) -> CLongType:
return 1
```
might be a good argument for not restricting it.
I caused a couple of syntax errors before adding special handling for
the ellipsis-only case, so I suspect that there are some other
interesting edge cases that may need to be handled better.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests, plus a few simple new ones. As noted above, I suspect
that we may need a few more for edge cases I haven't considered.
[this one]:
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/9745#issuecomment-2876771400
[example]:
https://github.com/psf/black/issues/902#issuecomment-1562154809
[comment]:
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/8893#issuecomment-1867259744
When formatting clause headers for clauses that are not their own node,
like an `else` clause or `finally` clause, we begin searching for the
keyword at the end of the previous statement. However, if the previous
statement ended in a semicolon this caused a panic because we only
expected trivia between the end of the last statement and the keyword.
This PR adjusts the starting point of our search for the keyword to
begin after the optional semicolon in these cases.
Closes#21065
## Summary
I spun this out from #21005 because I thought it might be helpful
separately. It just renders a nice `Diagnostic` for syntax errors
pointing to the source of the error. This seemed a bit more helpful to
me than just the byte offset when working on #21005, and we had most of
the code around after #20443 anyway.
## Test Plan
This doesn't actually affect any passing tests, but here's an example of
the additional output I got when I broke the spacing after the `in`
token:
```
error[internal-error]: Expected 'in', found name
--> /home/brent/astral/ruff/crates/ruff_python_formatter/resources/test/fixtures/black/cases/cantfit.py:50:79
|
48 | need_more_to_make_the_line_long_enough,
49 | )
50 | del ([], name_1, name_2), [(), [], name_4, name_3], name_1[[name_2 for name_1 inname_0]]
| ^^^^^^^^
51 | del ()
|
```
I just appended this to the other existing output for now.
## Summary
Fixes#20774 by tracking whether an `InterpolatedStringState` element is
nested inside of another interpolated element. This feels like kind of a
naive fix, so I'm welcome to other ideas. But it resolves the problem in
the issue and clears up the syntax error in the black compatibility
test, without affecting many other cases.
The other affected case is actually interesting too because the
[input](96b156303b/crates/ruff_python_formatter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/expression/fstring.py (L707))
is invalid, but the previous quote selection fixed the invalid syntax:
```pycon
Python 3.11.13 (main, Sep 2 2025, 14:20:25) [Clang 20.1.4 ] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }' # input
File "<stdin>", line 1
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
^^
SyntaxError: f-string: expecting '}'
>>> f'{1: abcd "{"aa"}" }' # old output
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ValueError: Invalid format specifier ' abcd "aa" ' for object of type 'int'
>>> f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }' # new output
File "<stdin>", line 1
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
^^
SyntaxError: f-string: expecting '}'
```
We now preserve the invalid syntax in the input.
Unfortunately, this also seems to be another edge case I didn't consider
in https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/20867 because we don't flag
this as a syntax error after 0.14.1:
<details><summary>Shell output</summary>
<p>
```
> uvx ruff@0.14.0 check --ignore ALL --target-version py311 - <<EOF
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
EOF
invalid-syntax: Cannot reuse outer quote character in f-strings on Python 3.11 (syntax was added in Python 3.12)
--> -:1:14
|
1 | f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
| ^
|
Found 1 error.
> uvx ruff@0.14.1 check --ignore ALL --target-version py311 - <<EOF
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
EOF
All checks passed!
> uvx python@3.11 -m ast <<EOF
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
EOF
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<frozen runpy>", line 198, in _run_module_as_main
File "<frozen runpy>", line 88, in _run_code
File "/home/brent/.local/share/uv/python/cpython-3.11.13-linux-x86_64-gnu/lib/python3.11/ast.py", line 1752, in <module>
main()
File "/home/brent/.local/share/uv/python/cpython-3.11.13-linux-x86_64-gnu/lib/python3.11/ast.py", line 1748, in main
tree = parse(source, args.infile.name, args.mode, type_comments=args.no_type_comments)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/brent/.local/share/uv/python/cpython-3.11.13-linux-x86_64-gnu/lib/python3.11/ast.py", line 50, in parse
return compile(source, filename, mode, flags,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "<stdin>", line 1
f'{1: abcd "{'aa'}" }'
^^
SyntaxError: f-string: expecting '}'
```
</p>
</details>
I assumed that was the same `ParseError` as the one caused by
`f"{1:""}"`, but this is a nested interpolation inside of the format
spec.
## Test Plan
New test copied from the black compatibility test. I guess this is a
duplicate now, I started working on this branch before the new black
tests were imported, so I could delete the separate test in our fixtures
if that's preferable.
Summary
--
This PR implements the black preview style from
https://github.com/psf/black/pull/4720. As of Python 3.14, you're
allowed to omit the parentheses around groups of exceptions, as long as
there's no `as` binding:
**3.13**
```pycon
Python 3.13.4 (main, Jun 4 2025, 17:37:06) [Clang 20.1.4 ] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> try: ...
... except (Exception, BaseException): ...
...
Ellipsis
>>> try: ...
... except Exception, BaseException: ...
...
File "<python-input-1>", line 2
except Exception, BaseException: ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: multiple exception types must be parenthesized
```
**3.14**
```pycon
Python 3.14.0rc2 (main, Sep 2 2025, 14:20:56) [Clang 20.1.4 ] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> try: ...
... except Exception, BaseException: ...
...
Ellipsis
>>> try: ...
... except (Exception, BaseException): ...
...
Ellipsis
>>> try: ...
... except Exception, BaseException as e: ...
...
File "<python-input-2>", line 2
except Exception, BaseException as e: ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: multiple exception types must be parenthesized when using 'as'
```
I think this ended up being pretty straightforward, at least once Micha
showed me where to start :)
Test Plan
--
New tests
At first I thought we were deviating from black in how we handle
comments within the exception type tuple, but I think this applies to
how we format all tuples, not specifically with the new preview style.
Resolves a crash when attempting to format code like:
```
from x import (a as # whatever
b)
```
Reworks the way comments are associated with nodes when parsing modules,
so that all possible comment positions can be retained and reproduced during
formatting.
Overall follows Black's formatting style for multi-line import statements.
Fixes issue #19138
This adds a new `backend: internal | uv` option to the LSP
`FormatOptions` allowing users to perform document and range formatting
operations though uv. The idea here is to prototype a solution for users
to transition to a `uv format` command without encountering version
mismatches (and consequently, formatting differences) between the LSP's
version of `ruff` and uv's version of `ruff`.
The primarily alternative to this would be to use uv to discover the
`ruff` version used to start the LSP in the first place. However, this
would increase the scope of a minimal `uv format` command beyond "run a
formatter", and raise larger questions about how uv should be used to
coordinate toolchain discovery. I think those are good things to
explore, but I'm hesitant to let them block a `uv format`
implementation. Another downside of using uv to discover `ruff`, is that
it needs to be implemented _outside_ the LSP; e.g., we'd need to change
the instructions on how to run the LSP and implement it in each editor
integration, like the VS Code plugin.
---------
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Manilawala <dhruvmanila@gmail.com>
## Summary
Removes the `module_ptr` field from `AstNodeRef` in release mode, and
change `NodeIndex` to a `NonZeroU32` to reduce the size of
`Option<AstNodeRef<_>>` fields.
I believe CI runs in debug mode, so this won't show up in the memory
report, but this reduces memory by ~2% in release mode.
## Summary
Garbage collect ASTs once we are done checking a given file. Queries
with a cross-file dependency on the AST will reparse the file on demand.
This reduces ty's peak memory usage by ~20-30%.
The primary change of this PR is adding a `node_index` field to every
AST node, that is assigned by the parser. `ParsedModule` can use this to
create a flat index of AST nodes any time the file is parsed (or
reparsed). This allows `AstNodeRef` to simply index into the current
instance of the `ParsedModule`, instead of storing a pointer directly.
The indices are somewhat hackily (using an atomic integer) assigned by
the `parsed_module` query instead of by the parser directly. Assigning
the indices in source-order in the (recursive) parser turns out to be
difficult, and collecting the nodes during semantic indexing is
impossible as `SemanticIndex` does not hold onto a specific
`ParsedModuleRef`, which the pointers in the flat AST are tied to. This
means that we have to do an extra AST traversal to assign and collect
the nodes into a flat index, but the small performance impact (~3% on
cold runs) seems worth it for the memory savings.
Part of https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/214.
## Summary
https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/214 will require a couple
invasive changes that I would like to get merged even before garbage
collection is fully implemented (to avoid rebasing):
- `ParsedModule` can no longer be dereferenced directly. Instead you
need to load a `ParsedModuleRef` to access the AST, which requires a
reference to the salsa database (as it may require re-parsing the AST if
it was collected).
- `AstNodeRef` can only be dereferenced with the `node` method, which
takes a reference to the `ParsedModuleRef`. This allows us to encode the
fact that ASTs do not live as long as the database and may be collected
as soon a given instance of a `ParsedModuleRef` is dropped. There are a
number of places where we currently merge the `'db` and `'ast`
lifetimes, so this requires giving some types/functions two separate
lifetime parameters.
This PR implements template strings (t-strings) in the parser and
formatter for Ruff.
Minimal changes necessary to compile were made in other parts of the code (e.g. ty, the linter, etc.). These will be covered properly in follow-up PRs.
<!--
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
I decided to disable the new
[`needless_continue`](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#needless_continue)
rule because I often found the explicit `continue` more readable over an
empty block or having to invert the condition of an other branch.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
I don't remember exactly when we made `Identifier` a node but it is now
considered a node (it implements `AnyNodeRef`, it has a range). However,
we never updated
the `SourceOrderVisitor` to visit identifiers because we never had a use
case for it and visiting new nodes can change how the formatter
associates comments (breaking change!).
This PR updates the `SourceOrderVisitor` to visit identifiers and
changes the formatter comment visitor to skip identifiers (updating the
visitor might be desired because it could help simplifying some comment
placement logic but this is out of scope for this PR).
## Test Plan
Tests, updated snapshot tests
## Summary
We renamed the `PreorderVisitor` to `SourceOrderVisitor` a long time ago
but it seems that we missed to rename the `visit_preorder` functions to
`visit_source_order`.
This PR renames `visit_preorder` to `visit_source_order`
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR stabilizies the fix for
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/14001
We try to only make breaking formatting changes once a year. However,
the plan was to release this fix as part of Ruff 0.9 but I somehow
missed it when promoting all other formatter changes.
I think it's worth making an exception here considering that this is a
bug fix, it improves readability, and it should be rare
(very few files in a single project). Our version policy explicitly
allows breaking formatter changes in any minor release and the idea of
only making breaking formatter changes once a year is mainly to avoid
multiple releases throughout the year that introduce large formatter
changes
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/14001
## Test Plan
Updated snapshot
## Summary
This is part of the preparation for detecting syntax errors in the
parser from https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16090/. As suggested
in [this
comment](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16090/#discussion_r1953084509),
I started working on a `ParseOptions` struct that could be stored in the
parser. For this initial refactor, I only made it hold the existing
`Mode` option, but for syntax errors, we will also need it to have a
`PythonVersion`. For that use case, I'm picturing something like a
`ParseOptions::with_python_version` method, so you can extend the
current calls to something like
```rust
ParseOptions::from(mode).with_python_version(settings.target_version)
```
But I thought it was worth adding `ParseOptions` alone without changing
any other behavior first.
Most of the diff is just updating call sites taking `Mode` to take
`ParseOptions::from(Mode)` or those taking `PySourceType`s to take
`ParseOptions::from(PySourceType)`. The interesting changes are in the
new `parser/options.rs` file and smaller parts of `parser/mod.rs` and
`ruff_python_parser/src/lib.rs`.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, this should not change any behavior.
## Summary
This PR updates the formatter and linter to use the `PythonVersion`
struct from the `ruff_python_ast` crate internally. While this doesn't
remove the need for the `linter::PythonVersion` enum, it does remove the
`formatter::PythonVersion` enum and limits the use in the linter to
deserializing from CLI arguments and config files and moves most of the
remaining methods to the `ast::PythonVersion` struct.
## Test Plan
Existing tests, with some inputs and outputs updated to reflect the new
(de)serialization format. I think these are test-specific and shouldn't
affect any external (de)serialization.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR makes the following changes:
- It adjusts various callsites to use the new
`ast::StringLiteral::contents_range()` method that was introduced in
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16183. This is less verbose and
more type-safe than using the `ast::str::raw_contents()` helper
function.
- It adds a new `ast::ExprStringLiteral::as_unconcatenated_literal()`
helper method, and adjusts various callsites to use it. This addresses
@MichaReiser's review comment at
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/16183#discussion_r1957334365.
There is no functional change here, but it helps readability to make it
clearer that we're differentiating between implicitly concatenated
strings and unconcatenated strings at various points.
- It renames the `StringLiteralValue::flags()` method to
`StringLiteralFlags::first_literal_flags()`. If you're dealing with an
implicitly concatenated string `string_node`,
`string_node.value.flags().closer_len()` could give an incorrect result;
this renaming makes it clearer that the `StringLiteralFlags` instance
returned by the method is only guaranteed to give accurate information
for the first `StringLiteral` contained in the `ExprStringLiteral` node.
- It deletes the unused `BytesLiteralValue::flags()` method. This seems
prone to misuse in the same way as `StringLiteralValue::flags()`: if
it's an implicitly concatenated bytestring, the `BytesLiteralFlags`
instance returned by the method would only give accurate information for
the first `BytesLiteral` in the bytestring.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/15978
Even Better TOML doesn't support `allOf` well. In fact, it just crashes.
This PR works around this limitation by avoid using `allOf` in the
automatically
derived schema for the docstring formatting setting.
### Alternatives
schemars introduces `allOf` whenver it sees a `$ref` alongside other
object properties
because this is no longer valid according to Draft 7. We could replace
the
visitor performing the rewrite but I prefer not to because replacing
`allOf` with `oneOf`
is only valid for objects that don't have any other `oneOf` or `anyOf`
schema.
## Test Plan
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/25d73b2a-fee1-4ba6-9ffe-869b2c3bc64e
## Summary
This is a follow-up to #15726, #15778, and #15794 to preserve the triple
quote and prefix flags in plain strings, bytestrings, and f-strings.
I also added a `StringLiteralFlags::without_triple_quotes` method to
avoid passing along triple quotes in rules like SIM905 where it might
not make sense, as discussed
[here](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/15726#discussion_r1930532426).
## Test Plan
Existing tests, plus many new cases in the `generator::tests::quote`
test that should cover all combinations of quotes and prefixes, at least
for simple string bodies.
Closes#7799 when combined with #15694, #15726, #15778, and #15794.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
The AST generator creates a reference enum for each syntax group — an
enum where each variant contains a reference to the relevant syntax
node. Previously you could customize the name of the reference enum for
a group — primarily because there was an existing `ExpressionRef` type
that wouldn't have lined up with the auto-derived name `ExprRef`. This
follow-up PR is a simple search/replace to switch over to the
auto-derived name, so that we can remove this customization point.
While looking into potential AST optimizations, I noticed the `AstNode`
trait and `AnyNode` type aren't used anywhere in Ruff or Red Knot. It
looks like they might be historical artifacts of previous ways of
consuming AST nodes?
- `AstNode::cast`, `AstNode::cast_ref`, and `AstNode::can_cast` are not
used anywhere.
- Since `cast_ref` isn't needed anymore, the `Ref` associated type isn't
either.
This is a pure refactoring, with no intended behavior changes.
This PR replaces most of the hard-coded AST definitions with a
generation script, similar to what happens in `rust_python_formatter`.
I've replaced every "rote" definition that I could find, where the
content is entirely boilerplate and only depends on what syntax nodes
there are and which groups they belong to.
This is a pretty massive diff, but it's entirely a refactoring. It
should make absolutely no changes to the API or implementation. In
particular, this required adding some configuration knobs that let us
override default auto-generated names where they don't line up with
types that we created previously by hand.
## Test plan
There should be no changes outside of the `rust_python_ast` crate, which
verifies that there were no API changes as a result of the
auto-generation. Aggressive `cargo clippy` and `uvx pre-commit` runs
after each commit in the branch.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
