## 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>
## Summary
Originally `join_with` was used in the formatters README.md. Now it uses
```rs
f.join_comma_separated(item.end())
.nodes(elts.iter())
.finish()
```
## Test Plan
None
## Summary
For formatter instabilities, the message we get look something like
this:
```text
Unstable formatting /home/konsti/ruff/target/checkouts/deepmodeling:dpdispatcher/dpdispatcher/slurm.py
@@ -47,9 +47,9 @@
- script_header_dict["slurm_partition_line"] = (
- NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
- )
+ script_header_dict[
+ "slurm_partition_line"
+ ] = NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
Unstable formatting /home/konsti/ruff/target/checkouts/deepmodeling:dpdispatcher/dpdispatcher/pbs.py
@@ -26,9 +26,9 @@
- pbs_script_header_dict["select_node_line"] += (
- NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
- )
+ pbs_script_header_dict[
+ "select_node_line"
+ ] += NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
```
For ruff crashes. you don't even get that but just the file that crashed
it. To extract the actual bug, you'd need to manually remove parts of
the file, rerun to see if the bug still occurs (and revert if it
doesn't) until you have a minimal example.
With this script, you run
```shell
cargo run --bin ruff_shrinking -- target/checkouts/deepmodeling:dpdispatcher/dpdispatcher/slurm.py target/minirepo/code.py "Unstable formatting" "target/debug/ruff_dev format-dev --stability-check target/minirepo"
```
and get
```python
class Slurm():
def gen_script_header(self, job):
if resources.queue_name != "":
script_header_dict["slurm_partition_line"] = f"#SBATCH --partition {resources.queue_name}"
```
which is an nice minimal example.
I've been using this script and it would be easier for me if this were
part of main. The main disadvantage to merging is that it adds
additional dependencies.
## Test Plan
I've been using this for a number of minimization. This is an internal
helper script you only run manually. I could add a test that minimizes a
rule violation if required.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
Comparing repos with black requires that we use the settings as black,
notably line length and magic trailing comma behaviour. Excludes and
preserving quotes (vs. a preference for either quote style) is not yet
implemented because they weren't needed for the test projects.
In the other two commits i fixed the output when the progress bar is
hidden (this way is recommonded in the indicatif docs), added a
`scratch.pyi` file to gitignore because black formats stub files
differently and also updated the ecosystem readme with the projects json
without forks.
## Test Plan
I added a `line-length` vs `line_length` test. Otherwise only my
personal usage atm, a PR to integrate the script into the CI to check
some projects will follow.
<!--
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.
## Summary
`StmtAnnAssign` would not insert parentheses when breaking the same way
`StmtAssign` does, causing unstable formatting and likely some syntax
errors.
## Test Plan
I added a regression test.
## Summary
The previous dummy was causing instabilities since it turned a string
into a variable.
E.g.
```python
script_header_dict[
"slurm_partition_line"
] = f"#SBATCH --partition {resources.queue_name}"
```
has an instability as
```python
- script_header_dict["slurm_partition_line"] = (
- NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
- )
+ script_header_dict[
+ "slurm_partition_line"
+ ] = NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED_ExprJoinedStr
```
## Test Plan
The instability is gone, otherwise it's still a dummy
## Summary
We have two `Cursor` implementations. This PR moves the implementation
from the formatter into `ruff_python_whitespace` (kind of a poorly-named
crate now) and uses it for both use-cases.
## Summary
Document all `ruff_dev` subcommands and document the `format_dev` flags
in the formatter readme.
CC @zanieb please flag everything that isn't clear or missing
## Test Plan
n/a
<!--
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 matches Black' behavior where it only omits the optional parentheses if the expression starts or ends with a parenthesized expression:
```python
a + [aaa, bbb, cccc] * c # Don't omit
[aaa, bbb, cccc] + a * c # Split
a + c * [aaa, bbb, ccc] # Split
```
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
This improves the Jaccard index from 0.945 to 0.946
<!--
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 Black compatibility when it comes to breaking comprehensions.
We want to avoid line breaks before the target and `in` whenever possible. Furthermore, `if X is not None` should be grouped together, similar to other binary like expressions
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
We don't use `ModExpression` anywhere but it's part of the AST, removes
one `not_implemented_yet` and is a trivial 2-liner, so i implemented
formatting for `ModExpression`.
## Test Plan
None, this kind of node does not occur in file input. Otherwise all the
tests for expressions
<!--
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
I started working on this because I assumed that I would need access to options inside of `NeedsParantheses` but it then turned out that I won't.
Anyway, it kind of felt nice to pass fewer arguments. So I'm gonna put this out here to get your feedback if you prefer this over passing individual fiels.
Oh, I sneeked in another change. I renamed `context.contents` to `source`. `contents` is too generic and doesn't tell you anything.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
It compiles
<!--
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 implements Black's behavior where it first splits off parenthesized expressions before splitting before operands to avoid unnecessary parentheses:
```python
# We want
if a + [
b,
c
]:
pass
# Rather than
if (
a
+ [b, c]
):
pass
```
This is implemented by using the new IR elements introduced in #5596.
* We give the group wrapping the optional parentheses an ID (`parentheses_id`)
* We use `conditional_group` for the lower priority groups (all non-parenthesized expressions) with the condition that the `parentheses_id` group breaks (we want to split before operands only if the parentheses are necessary)
* We use `fits_expanded` to wrap all other parenthesized expressions (lists, dicts, sets), to prevent that expanding e.g. a list expands the `parentheses_id` group. We gate the `fits_expand` to only apply if the `parentheses_id` group fits (because we prefer `a\n+[b, c]` over expanding `[b, c]` if the whole expression gets parenthesized).
We limit using `fits_expanded` and `conditional_group` only to expressions that themselves are not in parentheses (checking the conditions isn't free)
## Test Plan
It increases the Jaccard index for Django from 0.915 to 0.917
## Incompatibilites
There are two incompatibilities left that I'm aware of (there may be more, I didn't go through all snapshot differences).
### Long string literals
I commented on the regression. The issue is that a very long string (or any content without a split point) may not fit when only breaking the right side. The formatter than inserts the optional parentheses. But this is kind of useless because the overlong string will still not fit, because there are no new split points.
I think we should ignore this incompatibility for now
### Expressions on statement level
I don't fully understand the logic behind this yet, but black doesn't break before the operators for the following example even though the expression exceeds the configured line width
```python
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa < bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb > ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc == ddddddddddddddddddddd
```
But it would if the expression is used inside of a condition.
What I understand so far is that Black doesn't insert optional parentheses on the expression statement level (and a few other places) and, therefore, only breaks after opening parentheses. I propose to keep this deviation for now to avoid overlong-lines and use the compatibility report to make a decision if we should implement the same behavior.
## Summary
The similarity index, the fraction of unchanged lines, is easier to
understand than the jaccard index, the fraction between intersection and
union.
## Test Plan
I ran this on django and git a 0.945 index, meaning 5.5% of lines are
currently reformatted when compared to black
## Summary
Format statements such as `tree_depth += 1`. This is a statement that
does not allow any line breaks, the only thing to be mindful of is to
parenthesize the assigned expression
Jaccard index on django: 0.915 -> 0.918
## Test Plan
black tests, and two new tests, a basic one and one that ensures that
the child gets parentheses. I ran the django stability check.
## Summary
This is the result of running `cargo +nightly clippy --workspace
--all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings` and fixing all violations.
Just wanted to see if there were any interesting new checks on nightly
👀
## Summary
This PR implements the formatting of `raise` statements. I haven't
looked at the black implementation, this is inspired from from the
`return` statements formatting.
## Test Plan
The black differences with insta.
I also compared manually some edge cases with very long string and call
chaining and it seems to do the same formatting as black.
There is one issue:
```python
# input
raise OsError(
"aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa"
) from a.aaaaa(aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa).a(aaaa)
# black
raise OsError(
"aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa"
) from a.aaaaa(
aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa
).a(
aaaa
)
# ruff
raise OsError(
"aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa"
) from a.aaaaa(
aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa
).a(aaaa)
```
But I'm not sure this diff is the raise formatting implementation.
---------
Co-authored-by: Louis Dispa <ldispa@deezer.com>
## Summary
Fix an oversight in `find_only_token_in_range` where the following code
would panic due do the closing and opening parentheses being in the
range we scan:
```python
d1 = [
("a") if # 1
("b") else # 2
("c")
]
```
Closing and opening parentheses respectively are now correctly skipped.
## Test Plan
I added a regression test
## Summary
Format named expressions (walrus operator) such a `value := f()`.
Unlike tuples, named expression parentheses are not part of the range
even when mandatory, so mapping optional parentheses to always gives us
decent formatting without implementing all [PEP
572](https://peps.python.org/pep-0572/) rules on when we need
parentheses where other expressions wouldn't. We might want to revisit
this decision later and implement special cases, but for now this gives
us what we need.
## Test Plan
black fixtures, i added some fixtures and checked django and cpython for
stability.
Closes#5613
<!--
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
Fix typos found by
[codespell](https://github.com/codespell-project/codespell).
I have left out `memoize` for now (see #5606).
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
CI tests.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
Format `ExprIfExp`, also known as the ternary operator or inline `if`.
It can look like
```python
a1 = 1 if True else 2
```
but also
```python
b1 = (
# We return "a" ...
"a" # that's our True value
# ... if this condition matches ...
if True # that's our test
# ... otherwise we return "b§
else "b" # that's our False value
)
```
This also fixes a visitor order bug.
The jaccard index on django goes from 0.911 to 0.915.
## Test Plan
I added fixtures without and with comments in strange places.
## Summary
This extends the `ruff_dev` formatter script util. Instead of only doing
stability checks, you can now choose different compatible options on the
CLI and get statistics.
* It adds an option the formats all files that ruff would check to allow
looking at an entire black-formatted repository with `git diff`
* It computes the [Jaccard
index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaccard_index) as a measure of
deviation between input and output, which is useful as single number
metric for assessing our current deviations from black.
* It adds progress bars to both the single projects as well as the
multi-project mode.
* It adds an option to write the multi-project output to a file
Sample usage:
```
$ cargo run --bin ruff_dev -- format-dev --stability-check crates/ruff/resources/test/cpython
$ cargo run --bin ruff_dev -- format-dev --stability-check /home/konsti/projects/django
Syntax error in /home/konsti/projects/django/tests/test_runner_apps/tagged/tests_syntax_error.py: source contains syntax errors (parser error): BaseError { error: UnrecognizedToken(Name { name: "syntax_error" }, None), offset: 131, source_path: "<filename>" }
Found 0 stability errors in 2755 files (jaccard index 0.911) in 9.75s
$ cargo run --bin ruff_dev -- format-dev --write /home/konsti/projects/django
```
Options:
```
Several utils related to the formatter which can be run on one or more repositories. The selected set of files in a repository is the same as for `ruff check`.
* Check formatter stability: Format a repository twice and ensure that it looks that the first and second formatting look the same. * Format: Format the files in a repository to be able to check them with `git diff` * Statistics: The subcommand the Jaccard index between the (assumed to be black formatted) input and the ruff formatted output
Usage: ruff_dev format-dev [OPTIONS] [FILES]...
Arguments:
[FILES]...
Like `ruff check`'s files. See `--multi-project` if you want to format an ecosystem checkout
Options:
--stability-check
Check stability
We want to ensure that once formatted content stays the same when formatted again, which is known as formatter stability or formatter idempotency, and that the formatter prints syntactically valid code. As our test cases cover only a limited amount of code, this allows checking entire repositories.
--write
Format the files. Without this flag, the python files are not modified
--format <FORMAT>
Control the verbosity of the output
[default: default]
Possible values:
- minimal: Filenames only
- default: Filenames and reduced diff
- full: Full diff and invalid code
-x, --exit-first-error
Print only the first error and exit, `-x` is same as pytest
--multi-project
Checks each project inside a directory, useful e.g. if you want to check all of the ecosystem checkouts
--error-file <ERROR_FILE>
Write all errors to this file in addition to stdout. Only used in multi-project mode
```
## Test Plan
I ran this on django (2755 files, jaccard index 0.911) and discovered a
magic trailing comma problem and that we really needed to implement
import formatting. I ran the script on cpython to identify
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/5558.
## Summary
The following code was previously leading to unstable formatting:
```python
try:
try:
pass
finally:
print(1) # issue7208
except A:
pass
```
The comment would be formatted as a trailing comment of `try` which is
unstable as an end-of-line comment gets two extra whitespaces.
This was originally found in
99b00efd5e/Lib/getpass.py (L68-L91)
## Test Plan
I added a regression test
## Summary
Format import statements in all their variants. Specifically, this
implemented formatting `StmtImport`, `StmtImportFrom` and `Alias`.
## Test Plan
I added some custom snapshots, even though this has been covered well by
black's tests.
## Summary
If a comma separated list has only one entry, black will respect the
magic trailing comma, but it will not add a new one.
The following code will remain as is:
```python
b1 = [
aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa
]
b2 = [
aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa,
]
b3 = [
aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa,
aksjdhflsakhdflkjsadlfajkslhfdkjsaldajlahflashdfljahlfksajlhfajfjfsaahflakjslhdfkjalhdskjfa
]
```
## Test Plan
This was first discovered in
7eeadc82c2/django/contrib/admin/checks.py (L674-L681),
which i've minimized into a call test.
I've added tests for the three cases (one entry + no comma, one entry +
comma, more than one entry) to the list tests.
The diffs from the black tests get smaller.
## Summary
Change generator formatting dummy to include `NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED`. This
makes it easier to correctly identify them as dummies
## Test Plan
This is a dummy change
Support for `let…else` formatting was just merged to nightly
(rust-lang/rust#113225). Rerun `cargo fmt` with Rust nightly 2023-07-02
to pick this up. Followup to #939.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
<!--
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 normalizes line endings inside of strings to `\n` as required by the printer.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I added a new test using `\r\n` and ran the ecosystem check. There are no remaining end of line panics.
https://gist.github.com/MichaReiser/8f36b1391ca7b48475b3a4f592d74ff4
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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 fixes an issue where the binary expression formatting removed parentheses around the left hand side of an expression.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I added a new regression test and re-ran the ecosystem check. It brings down the `check-formatter-stability` output from a 3.4MB file down to 900KB.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
This formats call expressions with magic trailing comma and parentheses
behaviour but without call chaining
## Test Plan
Lots of new test fixtures, including some that don't work yet
<!--
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 extends the string formatting to respect the configured quote style.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
Extended the string test with new cases and set it up to run twice: Once with the `quote_style: Doube`, and once with `quote_style: Single` single and double quotes.
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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 adds tests that verify that the magic trailing comma is not respected if disabled in the formatter options.
Our test setup now allows to create a `<fixture-name>.options.json` file that contains an array of configurations that should be tested.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
It's all about tests :)
<!-- How was it tested? -->
<!--
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 adds a new `PyFormatOptions` struct that stores the python formatter options.
The new options aren't used yet, with the exception of magical trailing commas and the options passed to the printer.
I'll follow up with more PRs that use the new options (e.g. `QuoteStyle`).
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
`cargo test` I'll follow up with a new PR that adds support for overriding the options in our fixture tests.
## Motation
Previously,
```python
x = (
a1
.a2
# a
. # b
# c
a3
)
```
got formatted as
```python
x = a1.a2
# a
. # b
# c
a3
```
which is invalid syntax. This fixes that.
## Summary
This implements a basic form of attribute chaining
(<https://black.readthedocs.io/en/stable/the_black_code_style/current_style.html#call-chains>)
by checking if any inner attribute access contains an own line comment,
and if this is the case, adds parentheses around the outermost attribute
access while disabling parentheses for all inner attribute expressions.
We want to replace this with an implementation that uses recursion or a
stack while formatting instead of in `needs_parentheses` and also
includes calls rather sooner than later, but i'm fixing this now because
i'm uncomfortable with having known invalid syntax generation in the
formatter.
## Test Plan
I added new fixtures.
## Summary
This is small refactoring to reuse the code that detects the magic
trailing comma across functions. I make this change now to avoid copying
code in a later PR. @MichaReiser is planning on making a larger
refactoring later that integrates with the join nodes builder
## Test Plan
No functional changes. The magic trailing comma behaviour is checked by
the fixtures.
In the following code, the comment used to get wrongly associated with
the `if False` since it looked like an elif. This fixes it by checking
the indentation and adding a regression test
```python
if True:
pass
else: # Comment
if False:
pass
pass
```
Originally found in
1570b94a02/gradio/external.py (L478)
<!--
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 implements formatting for non-f-string Strings that do not use implicit concatenation.
Docstring formatting is out of the scope of this PR.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I added a few tests for simple string literals.
## Performance
Ouch. This is hitting performance somewhat hard. This is probably because we now iterate each string a couple of times:
1. To detect if it is an implicit string continuation
2. To detect if the string contains any new lines
3. To detect the preferred quote
4. To normalize the string
Edit: I integrated the detection of newlines into the preferred quote detection so that we only iterate the string three time.
We can probably do better by merging the implicit string continuation with the quote detection and new line detection by iterating till the end of the string part and returning the offset. We then use our simple tokenizer to skip over any comments or whitespace until we find the first non trivia token. From there we keep continue doing this in a loop until we reach the end o the string. I'll leave this improvement for later.
<!--
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 adds basic formatting for compare operations.
The implementation currently breaks diffeently when nesting binary like expressions. I haven't yet figured out what Black's logic is in that case but I think that this by itself is already an improvement worth merging.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I added a few new tests
<!-- How was it tested? -->
## Summary
This snippet used to panic because it expected to see a comma or
something similar after the `2` but met the closing parentheses that is
not part of the range and panicked
```python
a = {
1: (2),
# comment
3: True,
}
```
Originally found in
636a717ef0/testing/marionette/client/marionette_driver/geckoinstance.py (L109)
This snippet is also the test plan.
This solves an instability when formatting cpython. It also introduces
another one, but i think it's still a worthwhile change for now.
There's no proper testing since this is just a dummy.
<!--
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 StmtFor
still trying to learn how to help out with the formatter. trying
something slightly more advanced than [break](#5158)
mostly copied form StmtWhile
## Test Plan
snapshots
## Motivation
While black keeps parentheses nearly everywhere, the notable exception
is in the body of for loops:
```python
for (a, b) in x:
pass
```
becomes
```python
for a, b in x:
pass
```
This currently blocks #5163, which this PR should unblock.
## Solution
This changes the `ExprTuple` formatting option to include one additional
option that removes the parentheses when not using magic trailing comma
and not breaking. It is supposed to be used through
```rust
#[derive(Debug)]
struct ExprTupleWithoutParentheses<'a>(&'a Expr);
impl Format<PyFormatContext<'_>> for ExprTupleWithoutParentheses<'_> {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut Formatter<PyFormatContext<'_>>) -> FormatResult<()> {
match self.0 {
Expr::Tuple(expr_tuple) => expr_tuple
.format()
.with_options(TupleParentheses::StripInsideForLoop)
.fmt(f),
other => other.format().with_options(Parenthesize::IfBreaks).fmt(f),
}
}
}
```
## Testing
The for loop formatting isn't merged due to missing this (and i didn't
want to create more git weirdness across two people), but I've confirmed
that when applying this to while loops instead of for loops, then
```rust
write!(
f,
[
text("while"),
space(),
ExprTupleWithoutParentheses(test.as_ref()),
text(":"),
trailing_comments(trailing_condition_comments),
block_indent(&body.format())
]
)?;
```
makes
```python
while (a, b):
pass
while (
ajssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssa,
b,
):
pass
while (a,b,):
pass
```
formatted as
```python
while a, b:
pass
while (
ajssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssa,
b,
):
pass
while (
a,
b,
):
pass
```
## Summary
This is a complete rewrite of the handling of `/` and `*` comment
handling in function signatures. The key problem is that slash and star
don't have a note. We now parse out the positions of slash and star and
their respective preceding and following note. I've left code comments
for each possible case of function signature structure and comment
placement
## Test Plan
I extended the function statement fixtures with cases that i found. If
you have more weird edge cases your input would be appreciated.
## Summary
This fixes two problems discovered when trying to format the cpython
repo with `cargo run --bin ruff_dev -- check-formatter-stability
projects/cpython`:
The first is to ignore try/except trailing comments for now since they
lead to unstable formatting on the dummy.
The second is to avoid dropping trailing if comments through placement:
This changes the placement to keep a comment trailing an if-elif or
if-elif-else to keep the comment a trailing comment on the entire if.
Previously the last comment would have been lost.
```python
if "first if":
pass
elif "first elif":
pass
```
The last remaining problem in cpython so far is function signature
argument separator comment placement which is its own PR on top of this.
## Test Plan
I added test fixtures of minimized examples with links back to the
original cpython location
This formats slice expressions and subscript expressions.
Spaces around the colons follows the same rules as black
(https://black.readthedocs.io/en/stable/the_black_code_style/current_style.html#slices):
```python
e00 = "e"[:]
e01 = "e"[:1]
e02 = "e"[: a()]
e10 = "e"[1:]
e11 = "e"[1:1]
e12 = "e"[1 : a()]
e20 = "e"[a() :]
e21 = "e"[a() : 1]
e22 = "e"[a() : a()]
e200 = "e"[a() : :]
e201 = "e"[a() :: 1]
e202 = "e"[a() :: a()]
e210 = "e"[a() : 1 :]
```
Comment placement is different due to our very different infrastructure.
If we have explicit bounds (e.g. `x[1:2]`) all comments get assigned as
leading or trailing to the bound expression. If a bound is missing
`[:]`, comments get marked as dangling and placed in the same section as
they were originally in:
```python
x = "x"[ # a
# b
: # c
# d
]
```
to
```python
x = "x"[
# a
# b
:
# c
# d
]
```
Except for the potential trailing end-of-line comments, all comments get
formatted on their own line. This can be improved by keeping end-of-line
comments after the opening bracket or after a colon as such but the
changes were already complex enough.
I added tests for comment placement and spaces.
## Summary
I found it hard to figure out which function decides placement for a
specific comment. An explicit loop makes this easier to debug
## Test Plan
There should be no functional changes, no changes to the formatting of
the fixtures.
## Summary
Previously, `DecoratedComment` used `text_position()` and
`SourceComment` used `position()`. This PR unifies this to
`line_position` everywhere.
## Test Plan
This is a rename refactoring.
<!--
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 adds basic formatting for unary expressions.
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
## Test Plan
I added a new `unary.py` with custom test cases
<!--
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
Black supports for layouts when it comes to breaking binary expressions:
```rust
#[derive(Copy, Clone, Debug, Eq, PartialEq)]
enum BinaryLayout {
/// Put each operand on their own line if either side expands
Default,
/// Try to expand the left to make it fit. Add parentheses if the left or right don't fit.
///
///```python
/// [
/// a,
/// b
/// ] & c
///```
ExpandLeft,
/// Try to expand the right to make it fix. Add parentheses if the left or right don't fit.
///
/// ```python
/// a & [
/// b,
/// c
/// ]
/// ```
ExpandRight,
/// Both the left and right side can be expanded. Try in the following order:
/// * expand the right side
/// * expand the left side
/// * expand both sides
///
/// to make the expression fit
///
/// ```python
/// [
/// a,
/// b
/// ] & [
/// c,
/// d
/// ]
/// ```
ExpandRightThenLeft,
}
```
Our current implementation only handles `ExpandRight` and `Default` correctly. This PR adds support for `ExpandRightThenLeft` and `ExpandLeft`.
## Test Plan
I added tests that play through all 4 binary expression layouts.
## Summary
In https://github.com/astral-sh/RustPython-Parser/pull/8, we modified
RustPython to include ranges for any identifiers that aren't
`Expr::Name` (which already has an identifier).
For example, the `e` in `except ValueError as e` was previously
un-ranged. To extract its range, we had to do some lexing of our own.
This change should improve performance and let us remove a bunch of
code.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
konsti
Micha Reiser
Chris Pryer
David Szotten
Luc Khai Hai
Charlie Marsh
Louis Dispa
Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos
Anders Kaseorg