## Summary
This PR fixes the bug where if a Notebook contained IPython syntax, then
the format command would fail. This was because the correct mode was not
being used while parsing through the formatter code path.
## Test Plan
This PR isn't the only requirement for Notebook formatting to start
working with IPython escape commands. The following PR in the stack is
required as well.
<!--
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
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7448
Fixes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/7892
I've removed automatic dangling comment formatting, we're doing manual
dangling comment formatting everywhere anyway (the
assert-all-comments-formatted ensures this) and dangling comments would
break the formatting there.
## Test Plan
New test file.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
I got confused and refactored a bit, now the naming should be more
consistent. This is the basis for the range formatting work.
Chages:
* `format_module` -> `format_module_source` (format a string)
* `format_node` -> `format_module_ast` (format a program parsed into an
AST)
* Added `parse_ok_tokens` that takes `Token` instead of `Result<Token>`
* Call the source code `source` consistently
* Added a `tokens_and_ranges` helper
* `python_ast` -> `module` (because that's the type)
## Summary
The tokenizer was split into a forward and a backwards tokenizer. The
backwards tokenizer uses the same names as the forwards ones (e.g.
`next_token`). The backwards tokenizer gets the comment ranges that we
already built to skip comments.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
## Summary
This PR adds the `--preview` and `--no-preview` options to the `format` command (hidden) and passes it through to the formatte.
## Test Plan
I added the `dbg(f.options().preview())` statement in `FormatNodeRule::fmt` and verified that the option gets correctly passed to the formatter.
**Summary** Add recursive formatting based on `ruff check` file
discovery for `ruff format`, as a prototype for the formatter alpha.
This allows e.g. `format ../projects/django/`. It's still lacking
support for any settings except line length.
Note just like the existing `ruff format` this will become part of the
production build, i.e. you'll be able to use it - hidden by default and
with a prominent warning - with `ruff format .` after the next release.
Error handling works in my manual tests (the colors do also work):
```
$ target/debug/ruff format scripts/
warning: `ruff format` is a work-in-progress, subject to change at any time, and intended for internal use only.
```
(the above changes `add_rule.py` where we have the wrong bin op
breaking)
```
$ target/debug/ruff format ../projects/django/
warning: `ruff format` is a work-in-progress, subject to change at any time, and intended for internal use only.
Failed to format /home/konsti/projects/django/tests/test_runner_apps/tagged/tests_syntax_error.py: source contains syntax errors: ParseError { error: UnrecognizedToken(Name { name: "syntax_error" }, None), offset: 131, source_path: "<filename>" }
```
```
$ target/debug/ruff format a
warning: `ruff format` is a work-in-progress, subject to change at any time, and intended for internal use only.
Failed to read /home/konsti/ruff/a/d.py: Permission denied (os error 13)
```
**Test Plan** Missing! I'm not sure if it's worth building tests at this
stage or how they should look like.
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 adds the information whether we're in a .py python
source file or in a .pyi stub file to enable people working on #5822 and
related issues.
I'm not completely happy with `Default` for something that depends on
the input.
**Test Plan** None, this is currently unused, i'm leaving this to first
implementation of stub file specific formatting.
---------
Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
Part of #5062
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/issues/5931
Implements formatting of a sequence of type parameters in a dedicated
struct for reuse by classes, functions, and type aliases (preparing for
#5929). Adds formatting of type parameters in class and function
definitions — previously, they were just elided.
## Summary
The motivation here is that it will make this rule easier to rewrite as
a deferred check. Right now, we can't run this rule in the deferred
phase, because it depends on the `except_handler` to power its autofix.
Instead of lexing the `except_handler`, we can use the `SimpleTokenizer`
from the formatter, and just lex forwards and backwards.
For context, this rule detects the unused `e` in:
```python
try:
pass
except ValueError as e:
pass
```
<!--
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
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
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
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.
<!--
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.
<!--
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.
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.
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.
<!--
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
