the new leading comment is causing the whole Parameters list to break. these
cases should instead format like:
```py
(
lambda
# comment
*x, **y: x
)
(
lambda
# comment 2
*x, **y: x
)
```
without line breaks in the parameter list
Summary
--
This PR makes two changes to comment placement in lambda parameters.
First, we
now insert a line break if the first parameter has a leading comment:
```py
# input
(
lambda
* # comment 2
x:
x
)
# main
(
lambda # comment 2
*x: x
)
# this PR
(
lambda
# comment 2
*x: x
)
```
Note the missing space in the output from main. This case is currently
unstable
on main. Also note that the new formatting is more consistent with our
stable
formatting in cases where the lambda has its own dangling comment:
```py
# input
(
lambda # comment 1
* # comment 2
x:
x
)
# output
(
lambda # comment 1
# comment 2
*x: x
)
```
and when a parameter without a comment precedes the split `*x`:
```py
# input
(
lambda y,
* # comment 2
x:
x
)
# output
(
lambda y,
# comment 2
*x: x
)
```
This does change the stable formatting, but I think such cases are rare
(expecting zero hits in the ecosystem report), this fixes an existing
instability, and it should not change any code we've previously
formatted.
Second, this PR modifies the comment placement such that `# comment 2`
in these
outputs is still a leading comment on the parameter. This is also not
the case
on main, where it becomes a [dangling lambda
comment](https://play.ruff.rs/3b29bb7e-70e4-4365-88e0-e60fe1857a35?secondary=Comments).
This doesn't cause any
instability that I'm aware of on main, but it does cause problems when
trying to
adjust the placement of dangling lambda comments in #21385. Changing the
placement in this way should not affect any formatting here.
Test Plan
--
New lambda tests, plus existing tests covering the cases above with
multiple
comments around the parameters (see lambda.py 122-143, and 122-205 or so
more
broadly)
I also checked manually that the comments are now leading on the
parameter:
```shell
❯ cargo run --bin ruff_python_formatter -- --emit stdout --target-version 3.10 --print-comments <<EOF
(
lambda
# comment 2
*x: x
)
EOF
Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.15s
Running `target/debug/ruff_python_formatter --emit stdout --target-version 3.10 --print-comments`
# Comment decoration: Range, Preceding, Following, Enclosing, Comment
21..32, None, Some((Parameters, 37..39)), (ExprLambda, 6..42), "# comment 2"
{
Node {
kind: Parameter,
range: 37..39,
source: `*x`,
}: {
"leading": [
SourceComment {
text: "# comment 2",
position: OwnLine,
formatted: true,
},
],
"dangling": [],
"trailing": [],
},
}
(
lambda
# comment 2
*x: x
)
```
But I didn't see a great place to put a test like this. Is there
somewhere I can assert this comment placement since it doesn't affect
any formatting yet? Or is it okay to wait until we use this in #21385?
I tried to get Claude to come up with tests, but most of them weren't very
interesting. I think these two additional types of assignments might be worth
having, though.
parenthesizing these seems redundant. I would prefer our old formatting more
like this:
```py
def ddb():
sql = (
lambda var, table, n=N: f"""
CREATE TABLE {table} AS
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER () AS id, {var}
FROM (
SELECT {var}
FROM RANGE({n}) _ ({var})
ORDER BY RANDOM()
)
"""
)
```
where the `f"""` serves as the parentheses, instead of the current:
```py
def ddb():
sql = lambda var, table, n=N: (
f"""
CREATE TABLE {table} AS
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER () AS id, {var}
FROM (
SELECT {var}
FROM RANGE({n}) _ ({var})
ORDER BY RANDOM()
)
"""
)
```
this case ends up too long at 108 columns:
```py
class C:
def foo():
if True:
transaction_count = self._query_txs_for_range(
get_count_fn=lambda from_ts, to_ts, _chain_id=chain_id: db_evmtx.count_transactions_in_range(
chain_id=_chain_id,
from_ts=from_ts,
to_ts=to_ts,
),
)
```
instead, it should be formatted like this, fitting within 88 columns:
```py
class C:
def foo():
if True:
transaction_count = self._query_txs_for_range(
get_count_fn=lambda from_ts, to_ts, _chain_id=chain_id: (
db_evmtx.count_transactions_in_range(
chain_id=_chain_id,
from_ts=from_ts,
to_ts=to_ts,
)
),
)
```
we can fix this by removing the `has_own_parentheses` check in the new lambda
formatting, but this breaks other cases. we might want to preserve this? in this
specific ecosystem case, the project has a `noqa: E501` comment, so this seems
to be what they want anyway, although we don't know that when formatting
I would expect this to format as:
```py
class C:
_is_recognized_dtype: Callable[[DtypeObj], bool] = lambda x: (
lib.is_np_dtype(x, "M") or isinstance(x, DatetimeTZDtype)
)
```
instead of the current:
```py
class C:
_is_recognized_dtype: Callable[[DtypeObj], bool] = (
lambda x: lib.is_np_dtype(x, "M") or isinstance(x, DatetimeTZDtype)
)
```
this formats as:
```py
class C:
function_dict: Dict[Text, Callable[[CRFToken], Any]] = {
CRFEntityExtractorOptions.POS2: lambda crf_token: crf_token.pos_tag[
:2
] if crf_token.pos_tag is not None else None,
}
```
when I think it should look like:
```py
class C:
function_dict: Dict[Text, Callable[[CRFToken], Any]] = {
CRFEntityExtractorOptions.POS2: lambda crf_token: (
crf_token.pos_tag[:2] if crf_token.pos_tag is not None else None,
)
}
```
Closes#11216
Essentially the approach is to implement `Format` for a new struct
`FormatClause` which is just a clause header _and_ its body. We then
have the information we need to see whether there is a skip suppression
comment on the last child in the body and it all fits on one line.
## Summary
This is another attempt at https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/21410
that fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/19226.
@MichaReiser helped me get something working in a very helpful pairing
session. I pushed one additional commit moving the comments back from
leading comments to trailing comments, which I think retains more of the
input formatting.
I was inspired by Dylan's PR (#21185) to make one of these tables:
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col">Input</th>
<th scope="col">Main</th>
<th scope="col">PR</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><pre lang="python">
if (
not
# comment
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa +
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
):
pass
</pre></td>
<td><pre lang="python">
if (
# comment
not aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
):
pass
</pre></td>
<td><pre lang="python">
if (
not
# comment
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
):
pass
</pre></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><pre lang="python">
if (
# unary comment
not
# operand comment
(
# comment
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
)
):
pass
</pre></td>
<td><pre lang="python">
if (
# unary comment
# operand comment
not (
# comment
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
)
):
pass
</pre></td>
<td><pre lang="python">
if (
# unary comment
not
# operand comment
(
# comment
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
)
):
pass
</pre></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><pre lang="python">
if (
not # comment
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
):
pass
</pre></td>
<td><pre lang="python">
if ( # comment
not aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
):
pass
</pre></td>
<td><pre lang="python">
if (
not aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa # comment
+ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
):
pass
</pre></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
hopefully it helps even though the snippets are much wider here.
The two main differences are (1) that we now retain own-line comments
between the unary operator and its operand instead of moving these to
leading comments on the operator itself, and (2) that we move
end-of-line comments between the operator and operand to dangling
end-of-line comments on the operand (the last example in the table).
## Test Plan
Existing tests, plus new ones based on the issue. As I noted below, I
also ran the output from main on the unary.py file back through this
branch to check that we don't reformat code from main. This made me feel
a bit better about not preview-gating the changes in this PR.
```shell
> git show main:crates/ruff_python_formatter/resources/test/fixtures/ruff/expression/unary.py | ruff format - | ./target/debug/ruff format --diff -
> echo $?
0
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Co-authored-by: Takayuki Maeda <takoyaki0316@gmail.com>
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
Brent Westbrook
Brent Westbrook
Dylan