## Summary
fixes: #13813
This PR fixes a bug in the formatting assignment statement when the
value is an f-string.
This is resolved by using custom best fit layouts if the f-string is (a)
not already a flat f-string (thus, cannot be multiline) and (b) is not a
multiline string (thus, cannot be flattened). So, it is used in cases
like the following:
```py
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = f"testeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee{
expression}moreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"
```
Which is (a) `FStringLayout::Multiline` and (b) not a multiline.
There are various other examples in the PR diff along with additional
explanation and context as code comments.
## Test Plan
Add multiple test cases for various scenarios.
<!--
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?
-->
Fixes#6611
## Summary
This lint rule spots comments that are _intended_ to suppress or enable
the formatter, but will be ignored by the Ruff formatter.
We borrow some functions the formatter uses for determining comment
placement / putting them in context within an AST.
The analysis function uses an AST visitor to visit each comment and
attach it to the AST. It then uses that context to check:
1. Is this comment in an expression?
2. Does this comment have bad placement? (e.g. a `# fmt: skip` above a
function instead of at the end of a line)
3. Is this comment redundant?
4. Does this comment actually suppress any code?
5. Does this comment have ambiguous placement? (e.g. a `# fmt: off`
above an `else:` block)
If any of these are true, a violation is thrown. The reported reason
depends on the order of the above check-list: in other words, a `# fmt:
skip` comment on its own line within a list expression will be reported
as being in an expression, since that reason takes priority.
The lint suggests removing the comment as an unsafe fix, regardless of
the reason.
## Test Plan
A snapshot test has been created.
## Summary
This PR updates the formatter to preserve trailing semicolon for Jupyter
Notebooks.
The motivation behind the change is that semicolons in notebooks are
typically used to hide the output, for example when plotting. This is
highlighted in the linked issue.
The conditions required as to when the trailing semicolon should be
preserved are:
1. It should be a top-level statement which is last in the module.
2. For statement, it can be either assignment, annotated assignment, or
augmented assignment. Here, the target should only be a single
identifier i.e., multiple assignments or tuple unpacking isn't
considered.
3. For expression, it can be any.
## Test Plan
Add a new integration test in `ruff_cli`. The test notebook basically
acts as a document as to which trailing semicolons are to be preserved.
fixes: #8254
## Summary
This PR adds support for parenthesized comments. A parenthesized comment
is a comment that appears within a parenthesis, but not within the range
of the expression enclosed by the parenthesis. For example, the comment
here is a parenthesized comment:
```python
if (
# comment
True
):
...
```
The parentheses enclose the `True`, but the range of `True` doesn’t
include the `# comment`.
There are at least two problems associated with parenthesized comments:
(1) associating the comment with the correct (i.e., enclosed) node; and
(2) formatting the comment correctly, once it has been associated with
the enclosed node.
The solution proposed here for (1) is to search for parentheses between
preceding and following node, and use open and close parentheses to
break ties, rather than always assigning to the preceding node.
For (2), we handle these special parenthesized comments in `FormatExpr`.
The biggest risk with this approach is that we forget some codepath that
force-disables parenthesization (by passing in `Parentheses::Never`).
I've audited all usages of that enum and added additional handling +
test coverage for such cases.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/6390.
## Test Plan
`cargo test` with new cases.
Before:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| build | 0.75623 |
| cpython | 0.75472 |
| django | 0.99804 |
| transformers | 0.99618 |
| typeshed | 0.74233 |
| warehouse | 0.99601 |
| zulip | 0.99727 |
After:
| project | similarity index |
|--------------|------------------|
| build | 0.75623 |
| cpython | 0.75472 |
| django | 0.99804 |
| transformers | 0.99618 |
| typeshed | 0.74237 |
| warehouse | 0.99601 |
| zulip | 0.99727 |
## Summary
This PR fixes some misformattings around optional parentheses for
expressions.
I first noticed that we were misformatting this:
```python
return (
unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", s1).casefold()
== unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", s2).casefold()
)
```
The above is stable Black formatting, but we were doing:
```python
return unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", s1).casefold() == unicodedata.normalize(
"NFKC", s2
).casefold()
```
Above, the "last" expression is a function call, so our
`can_omit_optional_parentheses` was returning `true`...
However, it turns out that Black treats function calls differently
depending on whether or not they have arguments -- presumedly because
they'll never split empty parentheses, and so they're functionally
non-useful. On further investigation, I believe this applies to all
parenthesized expressions. If Black can't split on the parentheses, it
doesn't leverage them when removing optional parentheses.
## Test Plan
Nice increase in similarity scores.
Before:
- `zulip`: 0.99702
- `django`: 0.99784
- `warehouse`: 0.99585
- `build`: 0.75623
- `transformers`: 0.99470
- `cpython`: 0.75989
- `typeshed`: 0.74853
After:
- `zulip`: 0.99705
- `django`: 0.99795
- `warehouse`: 0.99600
- `build`: 0.75623
- `transformers`: 0.99471
- `cpython`: 0.75989
- `typeshed`: 0.74853
<!--
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 removes the `type_comment` field which our parser doesn't support.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
<!-- How was it tested? -->
**Summary** Add a static string error message to the formatter syntax
error so we can disambiguate where the syntax error came from
**Test Plan** No fixed tests, we don't expect this to occur, but it
helped with transformers syntax error debugging:
```
Error: Failed to format node
Caused by:
syntax error: slice first colon token was not a colon
```
## Summary
This PR runs `rustfmt` with a few nightly options as a one-time fix to
catch some malformatted comments. I ended up just running with:
```toml
condense_wildcard_suffixes = true
edition = "2021"
max_width = 100
normalize_comments = true
normalize_doc_attributes = true
reorder_impl_items = true
unstable_features = true
use_field_init_shorthand = true
```
Since these all seem like reasonable things to fix, so may as well while
I'm here.
* A basic StmtAssign formatter and better dummies for expressions
The goal of this PR was formatting StmtAssign since many nodes in the black tests (and in python in general) are after an assignment. This caused unstable formatting: The spacing of power op spacing depends on the type of the two involved expressions, but each expression was formatted as dummy string and re-parsed as a ExprName, so in the second round the different rules of ExprName were applied, causing unstable formatting.
This PR does not necessarily bring us closer to black's style, but it unlocks a good porting of black's test suite and is a basis for implementing the Expr nodes.
* fmt
* Review
<!--
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 replaces the `verbatim_text` builder with a `not_yet_implemented` builder that emits `NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_<NodeKind>` for not yet implemented nodes.
The motivation for this change is that partially formatting compound statements can result in incorrectly indented code, which is a syntax error:
```python
def func_no_args():
a; b; c
if True: raise RuntimeError
if False: ...
for i in range(10):
print(i)
continue
```
Get's reformatted to
```python
def func_no_args():
a; b; c
if True: raise RuntimeError
if False: ...
for i in range(10):
print(i)
continue
```
because our formatter does not yet support `for` statements and just inserts the text from the source.
## Downsides
Using an identifier will not work in all situations. For example, an identifier is invalid in an `Arguments ` position. That's why I kept `verbatim_text` around and e.g. use it in the `Arguments` formatting logic where incorrect indentations are impossible (to my knowledge). Meaning, `verbatim_text` we can opt in to `verbatim_text` when we want to iterate quickly on nodes that we don't want to provide a full implementation yet and using an identifier would be invalid.
## Upsides
Running this on main discovered stability issues with the newline handling that were previously "hidden" because of the verbatim formatting. I guess that's an upside :)
## Test Plan
None?
Micha Reiser
Dhruv Manilawala
Jane Lewis
Charlie Marsh
konsti