## Summary
This PR updates the string nodes (`ExprStringLiteral`,
`ExprBytesLiteral`, and `ExprFString`) to account for implicit string
concatenation.
### Motivation
In Python, implicit string concatenation are joined while parsing
because the interpreter doesn't require the information for each part.
While that's feasible for an interpreter, it falls short for a static
analysis tool where having such information is more useful. Currently,
various parts of the code uses the lexer to get the individual string
parts.
One of the main challenge this solves is that of string formatting.
Currently, the formatter relies on the lexer to get the individual
string parts, and formats them including the comments accordingly. But,
with PEP 701, f-string can also contain comments. Without this change,
it becomes very difficult to add support for f-string formatting.
### Implementation
The initial proposal was made in this discussion:
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/discussions/6183#discussioncomment-6591993.
There were various AST designs which were explored for this task which
are available in the linked internal document[^1].
The selected variant was the one where the nodes were kept as it is
except that the `implicit_concatenated` field was removed and instead a
new struct was added to the `Expr*` struct. This would be a private
struct would contain the actual implementation of how the AST is
designed for both single and implicitly concatenated strings.
This implementation is achieved through an enum with two variants:
`Single` and `Concatenated` to avoid allocating a vector even for single
strings. There are various public methods available on the value struct
to query certain information regarding the node.
The nodes are structured in the following way:
```
ExprStringLiteral - "foo" "bar"
|- StringLiteral - "foo"
|- StringLiteral - "bar"
ExprBytesLiteral - b"foo" b"bar"
|- BytesLiteral - b"foo"
|- BytesLiteral - b"bar"
ExprFString - "foo" f"bar {x}"
|- FStringPart::Literal - "foo"
|- FStringPart::FString - f"bar {x}"
|- StringLiteral - "bar "
|- FormattedValue - "x"
```
[^1]: Internal document:
https://www.notion.so/astral-sh/Implicit-String-Concatenation-e036345dc48943f89e416c087bf6f6d9?pvs=4
#### Visitor
The way the nodes are structured is that the entire string, including
all the parts that are implicitly concatenation, is a single node
containing individual nodes for the parts. The previous section has a
representation of that tree for all the string nodes. This means that
new visitor methods are added to visit the individual parts of string,
bytes, and f-strings for `Visitor`, `PreorderVisitor`, and
`Transformer`.
## Test Plan
- `cargo insta test --workspace --all-features --unreferenced reject`
- Verify that the ecosystem results are unchanged
## Summary
This PR splits the `Constant` enum as individual literal nodes. It
introduces the following new nodes for each variant:
* `ExprStringLiteral`
* `ExprBytesLiteral`
* `ExprNumberLiteral`
* `ExprBooleanLiteral`
* `ExprNoneLiteral`
* `ExprEllipsisLiteral`
The main motivation behind this refactor is to introduce the new AST
node for implicit string concatenation in the coming PR. The elements of
that node will be either a string literal, bytes literal or a f-string
which can be implemented using an enum. This means that a string or
bytes literal cannot be represented by `Constant::Str` /
`Constant::Bytes` which creates an inconsistency.
This PR avoids that inconsistency by splitting the constant nodes into
it's own literal nodes, literal being the more appropriate naming
convention from a static analysis tool perspective.
This also makes working with literals in the linter and formatter much
more ergonomic like, for example, if one would want to check if this is
a string literal, it can be done easily using
`Expr::is_string_literal_expr` or matching against `Expr::StringLiteral`
as oppose to matching against the `ExprConstant` and enum `Constant`. A
few AST helper methods can be simplified as well which will be done in a
follow-up PR.
This introduces a new `Expr::is_literal_expr` method which is the same
as `Expr::is_constant_expr`. There are also intermediary changes related
to implicit string concatenation which are quiet less. This is done so
as to avoid having a huge PR which this already is.
## Test Plan
1. Verify and update all of the existing snapshots (parser, visitor)
2. Verify that the ecosystem check output remains **unchanged** for both
the linter and formatter
### Formatter ecosystem check
#### `main`
| project | similarity index | total files | changed files |
|----------------|------------------:|------------------:|------------------:|
| cpython | 0.75803 | 1799 | 1647 |
| django | 0.99983 | 2772 | 34 |
| home-assistant | 0.99953 | 10596 | 186 |
| poetry | 0.99891 | 317 | 17 |
| transformers | 0.99966 | 2657 | 330 |
| twine | 1.00000 | 33 | 0 |
| typeshed | 0.99978 | 3669 | 20 |
| warehouse | 0.99977 | 654 | 13 |
| zulip | 0.99970 | 1459 | 22 |
#### `dhruv/constant-to-literal`
| project | similarity index | total files | changed files |
|----------------|------------------:|------------------:|------------------:|
| cpython | 0.75803 | 1799 | 1647 |
| django | 0.99983 | 2772 | 34 |
| home-assistant | 0.99953 | 10596 | 186 |
| poetry | 0.99891 | 317 | 17 |
| transformers | 0.99966 | 2657 | 330 |
| twine | 1.00000 | 33 | 0 |
| typeshed | 0.99978 | 3669 | 20 |
| warehouse | 0.99977 | 654 | 13 |
| zulip | 0.99970 | 1459 | 22 |
<!--
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? -->
<!--
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.
<!--
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? -->
* 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
Charlie Marsh
konsti