## Summary
The tokenizer was split into a forward and a backwards tokenizer. The
backwards tokenizer uses the same names as the forwards ones (e.g.
`next_token`). The backwards tokenizer gets the comment ranges that we
already built to skip comments.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
We're planning to move the documentation from
[https://beta.ruff.rs/docs](https://beta.ruff.rs/docs) to
[https://docs.astral.sh/ruff](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff), for a few
reasons:
1. We want to remove the `beta` from the domain, as Ruff is no longer
considered beta software.
2. We want to migrate to a structure that could accommodate multiple
future tools living under one domain.
The docs are actually already live at
[https://docs.astral.sh/ruff](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff), but later
today, I'll add a permanent redirect from the previous to the new
domain. **All existing links will continue to work, now and in
perpetuity.**
This PR contains the code changes necessary for the updated
documentation. As part of this effort, I moved the playground and
documentation from my personal Cloudflare account to our team Cloudflare
account (hence the new `--project-name` references). After merging, I'll
also update the secrets on this repo.
## Summary
Given a trailing operator comment in a unary expression, like:
```python
if (
not # comment
a):
...
```
We were attaching these to the operand (`a`), but formatting them in the
unary operator via special handling. Parents shouldn't format the
comments of their children, so this instead attaches them as dangling
comments on the unary expression. (No intended change in formatting.)
## Summary
This PR ensures that we catch and render panics in the formatter
identically to other kinds of errors. It also improves the consistency
in error rendering throughout and makes a few stylistic changes to the
messages.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7247.
## Test Plan
I created a file `foo.py` with a syntax error, and a file `bar.py` with
an intentional panic.
<img width="1624" alt="Screen Shot 2023-09-13 at 10 25 22 PM"
src="605c2839-ad02-4376-a2e9-d5a593ab660f">
<img width="1624" alt="Screen Shot 2023-09-13 at 10 25 24 PM"
src="b1381909-157c-48cb-9630-d0bbfcb1b640">
## Summary
Given a statement like:
```python
result = (
f(111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111)
+ 1
)()
```
When we go to parenthesize the target of the assignment, we use
`maybe_parenthesize_expression` with `Parenthesize::IfBreaks`. This then
checks if the call on the right-hand side needs to be parenthesized, the
implementation of which looks like:
```rust
impl NeedsParentheses for ExprCall {
fn needs_parentheses(
&self,
_parent: AnyNodeRef,
context: &PyFormatContext,
) -> OptionalParentheses {
if CallChainLayout::from_expression(self.into(), context.source())
== CallChainLayout::Fluent
{
OptionalParentheses::Multiline
} else if context.comments().has_dangling(self) {
OptionalParentheses::Always
} else {
self.func.needs_parentheses(self.into(), context)
}
}
}
```
Checking for `self.func.needs_parentheses(self.into(), context)` is
problematic, since, as in the example above, `self.func` may _already_
be parenthesized -- in which case, we _don't_ want to parenthesize the
entire expression. If we do, we end up with this non-ideal formatting:
```python
result = (
(
f(
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
)
+ 1
)()
)
```
This PR modifies the `NeedsParentheses` implementations for call chain
expressions to return `Never` if the inner expression has its own
parentheses, in which case, the formatting implementations for those
expressions will preserve them anyway.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7370.
## Test Plan
Zulip improves a bit, everything else is unchanged.
Before:
| project | similarity index | total files | changed files |
|--------------|------------------:|------------------:|------------------:|
| cpython | 0.76083 | 1789 | 1632 |
| django | 0.99981 | 2760 | 40 |
| transformers | 0.99944 | 2587 | 413 |
| twine | 1.00000 | 33 | 0 |
| typeshed | 0.99983 | 3496 | 18 |
| warehouse | 0.99834 | 648 | 20 |
| zulip | 0.99956 | 1437 | 23 |
After:
| project | similarity index | total files | changed files |
|--------------|------------------:|------------------:|------------------:|
| cpython | 0.76083 | 1789 | 1632 |
| django | 0.99981 | 2760 | 40 |
| transformers | 0.99944 | 2587 | 413 |
| twine | 1.00000 | 33 | 0 |
| typeshed | 0.99983 | 3496 | 18 |
| warehouse | 0.99834 | 648 | 20 |
| **zulip** | **0.99962** | **1437** | **22** |
## Summary
Fix all but one empty line differences with the black preview style in
typeshed. The remaining differences are breaking with type comments and
trailing commas in function definitions.
I compared the empty line differences with the preview mode of black
since stable has some oddities that would have been hard to replicate
(https://github.com/psf/black/issues/3861). Additionally, it assumes the
style proposed in https://github.com/psf/black/issues/3862.
An edge case that also surfaced with typeshed are newline before
trailing module comments.
**main**
| project | similarity index | total files | changed files |
|--------------|------------------:|------------------:|------------------:|
| cpython | 0.76083 | 1789 | 1632 |
| django | 0.99966 | 2760 | 58 |
| transformers | 0.99930 | 2587 | 447 |
| twine | 1.00000 | 33 | 0 |
| **typeshed** | 0.99978 | 3496 | **2173** |
| warehouse | 0.99825 | 648 | 22 |
| zulip | 0.99950 | 1437 | 27 |
**PR**
| project | similarity index | total files | changed files |
|--------------|------------------:|------------------:|------------------:|
| cpython | 0.76083 | 1789 | 1632 |
| django | 0.99966 | 2760 | 58 |
| transformers | 0.99930 | 2587 | 447 |
| twine | 1.00000 | 33 | 0 |
| **typeshed** | 0.99983 | 3496 | **18** |
| warehouse | 0.99825 | 648 | 22 |
| zulip | 0.99950 | 1437 | 27 |
Closes#6723
## Test Plan
The main driver was the typeshed diff. I added new test cases for all
kinds of possible empty line combinations in stub files, test cases for
newlines before trailing module comments.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
This PR adds the `--preview` and `--no-preview` options to the `format` command (hidden) and passes it through to the formatte.
## Test Plan
I added the `dbg(f.options().preview())` statement in `FormatNodeRule::fmt` and verified that the option gets correctly passed to the formatter.
Show header for formatter comment decoration info
**Summary** Show a header in the formatter comment decoration debug
output that shows which node is preceding/following/enclosing
(https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/6813#issuecomment-1708119550). I
kept this intentionally condensed to make it easy to use this is a small
sidebar without vertical scrolling.
```console
$ cargo run --bin ruff_python_formatter -- --emit stdout --print-comments scratch.py
# Comment decoration: Range, Preceding, Following, Enclosing, Comment
17..20, Some((ParameterWithDefault, 6..10)), None, (Parameters, 5..22), "# a"
44..47, Some((StmtExpr, 28..39)), Some((StmtExpr, 52..60)), (StmtFunctionDef, 0..60), "# b"
77..80, None, None, (ExprList, 71..82), "# c"
{
Node {
kind: ParameterWithDefault,
range: 6..10,
source: `x=[]`,
}: {
...
```
**Test Plan** It's debug output.
**Summary** The comment visitor used to rebuild the locator for every
comment. Instead, we now keep the locator on the builder. Follow-up to
#6813.
**Test Plan** No formatting changes.
## Summary
This PR modifies our between-statement comment handling such that
comments that are not separated by a statement by any newlines continue
to be treated as leading comments on the statement, but comments that
_are_ separated are instead formatted as trailing comments on the
preceding statement.
See, e.g., the originating snippet:
```python
DEFAULT_TEMPLATE = "flatpages/default.html"
# This view is called from FlatpageFallbackMiddleware.process_response
# when a 404 is raised, which often means CsrfViewMiddleware.process_view
# has not been called even if CsrfViewMiddleware is installed. So we need
# to use @csrf_protect, in case the template needs {% csrf_token %}.
# However, we can't just wrap this view; if no matching flatpage exists,
# or a redirect is required for authentication, the 404 needs to be returned
# without any CSRF checks. Therefore, we only
# CSRF protect the internal implementation.
def flatpage(request, url):
pass
```
Here, we need to ensure that the `def flatpage` is precede by two empty
lines. However, we want those two empty lines to be enforced from the
_end_ of the comment block, _unless_ the comments are directly atop the
`def flatpage`.
I played with this a bit, and I think the simplest conceptual model and
implementation is to instead treat those as trailing comments on the
preceding node. The main difficulty with this approach is that, in order
to be fully compatible with Black, we'd sometimes need to insert
newlines _between_ the preceding node and its trailing comments. See,
e.g.:
```python
def func():
...
# comment
x = 1
```
In this case, we'd need to insert two blank lines between `def func():
...` and `# comment`, but `# comment` is trailing comment on `def
func(): ...`. So, we'd need to take this case into account in the
various nodes that _require_ newlines after them: functions, classes,
and imports. After some discussion, we've opted _not_ to support this,
and just treat these as trailing comments -- so we won't insert newlines
there. This means our handling is still identical to Black's on
Black-formatted code, but avoids moving such trailing comments on
unformatted code.
I dislike that the empty handling is so complex, and that it's split
between so many different nodes, but this is really tricky. Continuing
to treat these as leading comments is very difficult too, since we'd
need to do similar tricks for the leading comment handling in those
nodes, and influencing leading comments is even harder, since they're
all formatted _before_ the node itself.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6761.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
Surprisingly, it doesn't change the similarity at all (apart from a
0.00001 change in CPython), but I manually confirmed that it did fix the
originating issue in Django.
Before:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| cpython | 0.76082 |
| django | 0.99921 |
| transformers | 0.99854 |
| twine | 0.99982 |
| typeshed | 0.99953 |
| warehouse | 0.99648 |
| zulip | 0.99928 |
After:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| cpython | 0.76081 |
| django | 0.99921 |
| transformers | 0.99854 |
| twine | 0.99982 |
| typeshed | 0.99953 |
| warehouse | 0.99648 |
| zulip | 0.99928 |
## Summary
This PR adds comment handling for comments between the `=` and the
`value` for keywords, as in the following cases:
```python
func(
x # dangling
= # dangling
# dangling
1,
** # dangling
y
)
```
(Comments after the `**` were already handled in some cases, but I've
unified the handling with the `=` handling.)
Note that, previously, comments between the `**` and its value were
rendered as trailing comments on the value (so they'd appear after `y`).
This struck me as odd since it effectively re-ordered the comment with
respect to its closest AST node (the value). I've made them leading
comments, though I don't know that that's a significant improvement. I
could also imagine us leaving them where they are.
