## 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`
## Summary
Ensures that we retain the open-parenthesis comment in cases like:
```python
match pattern_comments:
case ( # leading
only_leading
):
...
```
Previously, this was treated as a leading comment on `only_leading`.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
I noticed some inconsistencies around uses of `.range.start()`, structs
that have a `TextRange` field but don't implement `Ranged`, etc.
## Test Plan
`cargo test`
## Summary
This PR adds formatting support for `MatchCase` node with subs for the
`Pattern`
nodes.
## Test Plan
Added test cases for case node handling with comments, newlines.
resolves: #6299
We currently don't format all comments as match statements are not yet implemented. We can work around this for the top level match statement by setting them manually formatted but the mocked-out top level match doesn't call into its children so they would still have unformatted comments
## Summary
This PR adds support for `StmtMatch` with subs for `MatchCase`.
## Test Plan
Add a few additional test cases around `match` statement, comments, line
breaks.
resolves: #6298
<!--
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
Charlie Marsh
Tom Kuson
Dhruv Manilawala
konsti