## 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`
## Summary
Fixes some comprehension formatting by avoiding creating the group for
the comprehension itself (so that if it breaks, all parts break on their
own lines, e.g. the `for` and the `if` clauses).
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6063.
## Test Plan
Bunch of new fixtures.
Implement fluent style/call chains. See the `call_chains.py` formatting
for examples.
This isn't fully like black because in `raise A from B` they allow `A`
breaking can influence the formatting of `B` even if it is already
multiline.
Similarity index:
| project | main | PR |
|--------------|-------|-------|
| build | ??? | 0.753 |
| django | 0.991 | 0.998 |
| transformers | 0.993 | 0.994 |
| typeshed | 0.723 | 0.723 |
| warehouse | 0.978 | 0.994 |
| zulip | 0.992 | 0.994 |
Call chain formatting is affected by
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/627, but i'm cutting scope
here.
Closes#5343
**Test Plan**:
* Added a dedicated call chains test file
* The ecosystem checks found some bugs
* I manually check django and zulip formatting
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
**Summary** This adds the information whether we're in a .py python
source file or in a .pyi stub file to enable people working on #5822 and
related issues.
I'm not completely happy with `Default` for something that depends on
the input.
**Test Plan** None, this is currently unused, i'm leaving this to first
implementation of stub file specific formatting.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
We already support preserving the end-of-line comment in calls and type
parameters, as in:
```python
foo( # comment
bar,
)
```
This PR adds the same behavior for lists, sets, comprehensions, etc.,
such that we preserve:
```python
[ # comment
1,
2,
3,
]
```
And related cases.
## Summary
This ensures that we treat `# comment` as parenthesized in contexts
like:
```python
while (
True
# comment
):
pass
```
The same logic applies equally to `for`, `async for`, `if`, `with`, and
`async with`. The general pattern is that you have an expression which
precedes a colon-separated suite.
Part of #5062
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/5931
Implements formatting of a sequence of type parameters in a dedicated
struct for reuse by classes, functions, and type aliases (preparing for
#5929). Adds formatting of type parameters in class and function
definitions — previously, they were just elided.
## Summary
Builds on #6170 to break `global` and `nonlocal` statements, such that
we get:
```python
def f():
global \
analyze_featuremap_layer, \
analyze_featuremapcompression_layer, \
analyze_latencies_post, \
analyze_motions_layer, \
analyze_size_model
```
Instead of:
```python
def f():
global analyze_featuremap_layer, analyze_featuremapcompression_layer, analyze_latencies_post, analyze_motions_layer, analyze_size_model
```
Notably, we avoid applying this formatting if the statement ends in a
comment. Otherwise, the comment would _need_ to be placed after the last
item, like:
```python
def f():
global \
analyze_featuremap_layer, \
analyze_featuremapcompression_layer, \
analyze_latencies_post, \
analyze_motions_layer, \
analyze_size_model # noqa
```
To me, this seems wrong (and would break the `# noqa` comment). Ideally,
the items would be parenthesized, and the comment would be on the inner
parenthesis, like:
```python
def f():
global ( # noqa
analyze_featuremap_layer,
analyze_featuremapcompression_layer,
analyze_latencies_post,
analyze_motions_layer,
analyze_size_model
)
```
But that's not valid syntax.
## Summary
Previously, the ruff formatter was removing the star argument of
`lambda` expressions when formatting.
Given the following code snippet
```python
lambda *a: ()
lambda **b: ()
```
it would be formatted to
```python
lambda: ()
lambda: ()
```
We fix this by checking for the presence of `args`, `vararg` or `kwarg`
in the `lambda` expression, before we were only checking for the
presence of `args`.
Fixes#5894
## Test Plan
Add new tests cases.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charlie Marsh <charlie.r.marsh@gmail.com>
## Summary
This PR leverages the `Arguments` AST node introduced in #6259 in the
formatter, which ensures that we correctly handle trailing comments in
calls, like:
```python
f(
1,
# comment
)
pass
```
(Previously, this was treated as a leading comment on `pass`.)
This also allows us to unify the argument handling across calls and
class definitions.
## Test Plan
A bunch of new fixture tests, plus improved Black compatibility.
## Summary
Black allows up to one blank line _before_ a class docstring, and
enforces one blank line _after_ a class docstring. This PR implements
that handling. The cases in
`crates/ruff_python_formatter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/statement/class_definition.py`
match Black identically.
## Summary
This PR ensures that if a function or class is the first statement in a
nested suite that _isn't_ a function or class body, we insert a leading
newline.
For example, given:
```python
def f():
if True:
def register_type():
pass
```
We _want_ to preserve the newline, whereas today, we remove it.
Note that this only applies when the function or class doesn't have any
leading comments.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6066.
## Summary
This PR moves the "insert empty lines" behavior out of
`JoinNodesBuilder` and into the `Suite` formatter. I find it a little
confusing that the logic is split between those two formatters right
now, and since this is _only_ used in that one place, IMO it is a bit
simpler to just inline it and use a single approach to tracking state
(right now, both are stateful).
The only other place this was used was for decorators. As a side effect,
we now remove blank lines in both of these cases, which is a known but
intentional deviation from Black (which preserves the empty line before
the comment in the first case):
```python
@foo
# Hello
@bar
def baz():
pass
@foo
@bar
def baz():
pass
```
**Summary** This prevents us from turning `r'''\""'''` into
`r"""\"""""`, which is invalid syntax.
This PR fixes CI, which is currently broken on main (in a way that still
passes on linter PRs and allows merging formatter PRs, but it's bad to
have a job be red). Once merged, i'll make the formatted ecosystem
checks a required check.
**Test Plan** Added a regression test.
<!--
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
Format bytes string
Closes#6064
## Test Plan
Added a fixture based on string's one
## Summary
Adds `global` and `nonlocal` formatting, without the "deviation from
black" outlined in the linked issue, which I'll do separately.
See: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/4798.
## Test Plan
Added a fixture in the Ruff-specific directory since the Black fixtures
don't seem to cover this.
## Summary
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/5781
## Test Plan
Added cases to
`crates/ruff_python_formatter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/expression/named_expr.py`
one-by-one and adjusted the condition as needed.
## Summary
This is a rewrite of the main comment placement logic. `place_comment`
now has three parts:
- place own line comments
- between branches
- after a branch
- place end-of-line comments
- after colon
- after a branch
- place comments for specific nodes (that include module level comments)
The rewrite fixed three bugs: `class A: # trailing comment` comments now
stay end-of-line, `try: # comment` remains end-of-line and deeply
indented try-else-finally comments remain with the right nested
statement.
It will be much easier to give more alternative branches nodes since
this is abstracted away by `is_node_with_body` and the first/last child
helpers. Adding new node types can now be done by adding an entry to the
`place_comment` match. The code went from 1526 lines before #6033 to
1213 lines now.
It thinks it easier to just read the new `placement.rs` rather than
reviewing the diff.
## Test Plan
The existing fixtures staying the same or improving plus new ones for
the bug fixes.
## Summary
This PR is a refactoring of placement.rs. The code got more consistent,
some comments were updated and some dead code was removed or replaced
with debug assertions. It also contains a bugfix for the placement of
end-of-branch comments with nested bodies inside try statements that
occurred when refactoring the nested body loop.
## Test Plan
The existing test cases don't change. I added a couple of cases that i
think should be tested but weren't, and a regression test for the bugfix
**Summary** Fix an instability in with statement formatter when there is
an own line comment as the `as`
```python
with (
a as
# bad comment
b):
```
**Test Plan** Added the comment to the test cases.
**Summary** Add a `EmptyWithDanglingComments` format helper that formats
comments inside empty parentheses, brackets or curly braces. Previously,
this was implemented separately, and partially incorrectly, for each use
case.
Empty `()`, `[]` and `{}` are special because there can be dangling
comments, and they can be in
two positions:
```python
x = [ # end-of-line
# own line
]
```
These comments are dangling because they can't be assigned to any
element inside as they would
in all other cases.
**Test Plan** Added a regression test.
145 (from previously 149) instances of unstable formatting remaining.
```
$ cargo run --bin ruff_dev --release -- format-dev --stability-check --error-file formatter-ecosystem-errors.txt --multi-project target/checkouts > formatter-ecosystem-progress.txt
$ rg "Unstable formatting" target/formatter-ecosystem-errors.txt | wc -l
145
```
**Summary** Fix implemented in
https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/35: Previously,
empty lambda arguments (e.g. `lambda: 1`) would get the range of the
entire expression, which leads to incorrect comment placement. Now empty
lambda arguments get an empty range between the `lambda` and the `:`
tokens.
**Test Plan** Added a regression test.
149 instances of unstable formatting remaining.
```
$ cargo run --bin ruff_dev --release -- format-dev --stability-check --error-file formatter-ecosystem-errors.txt --multi-project target/checkouts > formatter-ecosystem-progress.txt
$ rg "Unstable formatting" target/formatter-ecosystem-errors.txt | wc -l
149
```
<!--
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
- Remove space when start of slice is empty
- Treat unary op except `not` as simple expression
## Test Plan
Add some simple tests for unary op expressions in slice
Closes#5673
**Summary** This replaces the `todo!()` with a type alias stub in the
formatter. I added the tests from
704eb40108/parser/src/parser.rs (L901-L936)
as ruff python formatter tests.
**Test Plan** None, testing is part of the actual implementation
**Summary** Fix the formatter crash with `x[(1) :: ]` and related code.
**Problem** For assigning comments in slices in subscripts, we need to
find the positions of the colons to assign comments before and after the
colon to the respective lower/upper/step node (or dangling in that
section). Formatting `x[(1) :: ]` was broken because we were looking for
a `:` after the `1` but didn't consider that there could be a `)`
outside the range of the lower node, which contains just the `1` and no
optional parentheses.
**Solution** Use the simple tokenizer directly and skip all closing
parentheses.
**Test Plan** I added regression tests.
Closes#5733
## Summary
Previously, `StmtIf` was defined recursively as
```rust
pub struct StmtIf {
pub range: TextRange,
pub test: Box<Expr>,
pub body: Vec<Stmt>,
pub orelse: Vec<Stmt>,
}
```
Every `elif` was represented as an `orelse` with a single `StmtIf`. This
means that this representation couldn't differentiate between
```python
if cond1:
x = 1
else:
if cond2:
x = 2
```
and
```python
if cond1:
x = 1
elif cond2:
x = 2
```
It also makes many checks harder than they need to be because we have to
recurse just to iterate over an entire if-elif-else and because we're
lacking nodes and ranges on the `elif` and `else` branches.
We change the representation to a flat
```rust
pub struct StmtIf {
pub range: TextRange,
pub test: Box<Expr>,
pub body: Vec<Stmt>,
pub elif_else_clauses: Vec<ElifElseClause>,
}
pub struct ElifElseClause {
pub range: TextRange,
pub test: Option<Expr>,
pub body: Vec<Stmt>,
}
```
where `test: Some(_)` represents an `elif` and `test: None` an else.
This representation is different tradeoff, e.g. we need to allocate the
`Vec<ElifElseClause>`, the `elif`s are now different than the `if`s
(which matters in rules where want to check both `if`s and `elif`s) and
the type system doesn't guarantee that the `test: None` else is actually
last. We're also now a bit more inconsistent since all other `else`,
those from `for`, `while` and `try`, still don't have nodes. With the
new representation some things became easier, e.g. finding the `elif`
token (we can use the start of the `ElifElseClause`) and formatting
comments for if-elif-else (no more dangling comments splitting, we only
have to insert the dangling comment after the colon manually and set
`leading_alternate_branch_comments`, everything else is taken of by
having nodes for each branch and the usual placement.rs fixups).
## Merge Plan
This PR requires coordination between the parser repo and the main ruff
repo. I've split the ruff part, into two stacked PRs which have to be
merged together (only the second one fixes all tests), the first for the
formatter to be reviewed by @michareiser and the second for the linter
to be reviewed by @charliermarsh.
* MH: Review and merge
https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/20
* MH: Review and merge or move later in stack
https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/21
* MH: Review and approve
https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/22
* MH: Review and approve formatter PR
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/5459
* CM: Review and approve linter PR
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/5460
* Merge linter PR in formatter PR, fix ecosystem checks (ecosystem
checks can't run on the formatter PR and won't run on the linter PR, so
we need to merge them first)
* Merge https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/22
* Create tag in the parser, update linter+formatter PR
* Merge linter+formatter PR https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/5459
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
<!--
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 uses the `join_comma_separated` builder for formatting set
expressions
to ensure the formatting preserves magic commas, if the setting is
enabled.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
See the fixed black tests
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Format `DictComp` like `ListComp` from #5600. It's not 100%, but I
figured maybe it's worth starting to explore.
## Test Plan
Added ruff fixture based on `ListComp`'s.
<!--
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 improves the parentheses handling for with items to get closer
to black's formatting.
### Case 1:
```python
# Black / Input
with (
[
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
+ cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
+ ddddddddddddddddd as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
):
...
# Before
with (
[
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1,
(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
+ cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
+ ddddddddddddddddd
) as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
CtxManager2() as example2,
):
...
```
Notice how Ruff wraps the binary expression in an extra set of
parentheses
### Case 2:
Black does not expand the with-items if the with has no parentheses:
```python
# Black / Input
with aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb as c:
...
# Before
with (
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb as c
):
...
```
Or
```python
# Black / Input
with [
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa * bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb * cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc + ddddddddddddddddd as example2, CtxManager222222222222222() as example2:
...
# Before (Same as Case 1)
with (
[
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"bbbbbbbbbb",
"cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc",
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd,
] as example1,
(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
* bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
* cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
+ ddddddddddddddddd
) as example2,
CtxManager222222222222222() as example2,
):
...
```
## Test Plan
I added new snapshot tests
Improves the django similarity index from 0.973 to 0.977
<!--
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
Format `SetComp` like `ListComp`.
## Test Plan
Derived from `ListComp`'s fixture.
