## 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.
## Summary
As a small quality-of-life improvement, the locator can now slice like
`locator.slice(stmt)` instead of requiring
`locator.slice(stmt.range())`.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
**Summary** Add recursive formatting based on `ruff check` file
discovery for `ruff format`, as a prototype for the formatter alpha.
This allows e.g. `format ../projects/django/`. It's still lacking
support for any settings except line length.
Note just like the existing `ruff format` this will become part of the
production build, i.e. you'll be able to use it - hidden by default and
with a prominent warning - with `ruff format .` after the next release.
Error handling works in my manual tests (the colors do also work):
```
$ target/debug/ruff format scripts/
warning: `ruff format` is a work-in-progress, subject to change at any time, and intended for internal use only.
```
(the above changes `add_rule.py` where we have the wrong bin op
breaking)
```
$ target/debug/ruff format ../projects/django/
warning: `ruff format` is a work-in-progress, subject to change at any time, and intended for internal use only.
Failed to format /home/konsti/projects/django/tests/test_runner_apps/tagged/tests_syntax_error.py: source contains syntax errors: ParseError { error: UnrecognizedToken(Name { name: "syntax_error" }, None), offset: 131, source_path: "<filename>" }
```
```
$ target/debug/ruff format a
warning: `ruff format` is a work-in-progress, subject to change at any time, and intended for internal use only.
Failed to read /home/konsti/ruff/a/d.py: Permission denied (os error 13)
```
**Test Plan** Missing! I'm not sure if it's worth building tests at this
stage or how they should look like.
## Summary
The motivation here is that this enables us to implement `Ranged` in
crates that don't depend on `ruff_python_ast`.
Largely a mechanical refactor with a lot of regex, Clippy help, and
manual fixups.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR introduces two new AST nodes to improve the representation of
`PatternMatchClass`. As a reminder, `PatternMatchClass` looks like this:
```python
case Point2D(0, 0, x=1, y=2):
...
```
Historically, this was represented as a vector of patterns (for the `0,
0` portion) and parallel vectors of keyword names (for `x` and `y`) and
values (for `1` and `2`). This introduces a bunch of challenges for the
formatter, but importantly, it's also really different from how we
represent similar nodes, like arguments (`func(0, 0, x=1, y=2)`) or
parameters (`def func(x, y)`).
So, firstly, we now use a single node (`PatternArguments`) for the
entire parenthesized region, making it much more consistent with our
other nodes. So, above, `PatternArguments` would be `(0, 0, x=1, y=2)`.
Secondly, we now have a `PatternKeyword` node for `x=1` and `y=2`. This
is much more similar to the how `Keyword` is represented within
`Arguments` for call expressions.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6866.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6880.
<!--
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
Adds support for `PatternMatchMapping` -- i.e., cases like:
```python
match foo:
case {"a": 1, "b": 2, **rest}:
pass
```
Unfortunately, this node has _three_ kinds of dangling comments:
```python
{ # "open parenthesis comment"
key: pattern,
** # end-of-line "double star comment"
# own-line "double star comment"
rest # end-of-line "after rest comment"
# own-line "after rest comment"
}
```
Some of the complexity comes from the fact that in `**rest`, `rest` is
an _identifier_, not a node, so we have to handle comments _after_ it as
dangling on the enclosing node, rather than trailing on `**rest`. (We
could change the AST to use `PatternMatchAs` there, which would be more
permissive than the grammar but not totally crazy -- `PatternMatchAs` is
used elsewhere to mean "a single identifier".)
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6644.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR ensures that if an expression has an own-line leading comment
_before_ its open parentheses, we render it as such.
For example, given:
```python
[ # foo
# bar
( # baz
1
)
]
```
On `main`, we format as:
```python
[ # foo
(
# bar
# baz
1
)
]
```
As of this PR, we format as:
```python
[ # foo
# bar
( # baz
1
)
]
```
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR ensures that we handle bracketed comments on sequences, like `#
comment` here:
```python
match x:
case [ # comment
1, 2
]:
pass
```
The handling is very similar to other, similar nodes, except that we do
need some special logic to determine whether the sequence is
parenthesized, similar to our logic for tuples.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR modifies our formatting of comments around the `.` in an
attribute. Specifically, the goal here is to avoid _reordering_
comments, and the net effect is that we generally leave comments
where-they-are when dealing with comments between around the dot (which
you can also think of as comments between attributes).
All comments around the dot are now treated as dangling and formatted
manually, with the exception of end-of-line or parenthesized comments on
the value, like those marked as trailing here, which remain trailing:
```python
(
(
a # trailing end-of-line
# trailing own-line
) # dangling before dot end-of-line
.b # trailing end-of-line
)
```
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6823.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
Before:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| cpython | 0.76050 |
| django | 0.99820 |
| transformers | 0.99800 |
| twine | 0.99876 |
| typeshed | 0.99953 |
| warehouse | 0.99615 |
| zulip | 0.99729 |
After:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| cpython | 0.76050 |
| django | 0.99820 |
| transformers | 0.99800 |
| twine | 0.99876 |
| typeshed | 0.99953 |
| warehouse | 0.99615 |
| zulip | 0.99729 |
## Summary
This PR fixes the duplicate-parenthesis problem that's visible in the
tests from https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/6799. The issue is
that we might have parentheses around the entire match-case pattern,
like in `(1)` here:
```python
match foo:
case (1):
y = 0
```
In this case, the inner expression (`1`) will _think_ it's
parenthesized, but we'll _also_ detect the parentheses at the case level
-- so they get rendered by the case, then again by the expression.
Instead, if we detect parentheses at the case level, we can force-off
the parentheses for the pattern using a design similar to the way we
handle parentheses on expressions.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6753.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
Charlie Marsh
konsti
Dhruv Manilawala
Micha Reiser
Chris Pryer
magic-akari
Victor Hugo Gomes
David Szotten