Format implicit string continuation #5328
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Current dependencies on/for this PR: This comment was auto-generated by Graphite. |
MichaReiser
force-pushed
the
format-implicit-continuation
branch
from
cc6019d to
affb113
Compare
MichaReiser
commented
Jun 23, 2023
| @@ -10,6 +11,14 @@ impl FormatNodeRule<StmtExpr> for FormatStmtExpr { | |||
| fn fmt_fields(&self, item: &StmtExpr, f: &mut PyFormatter) -> FormatResult<()> { | |||
| let StmtExpr { value, .. } = item; | |||
|
|
|||
| if let Some(constant) = value.as_constant_expr() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems that StmtExpr is the only one where we don't want to break string continuations. So I added an explicit exclude.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using implicit concatenations on statement level feels strange to me, do we have any examples of that in the wild
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm I don't know. Is there a good way finding this out using your scripts? This was probably the hardest part of this PR (figuring out the rule when this is happening), which is why I would prefer not removing it until we're sure that we don't need it. I could add a TODo to experiment removing it once we have a ecosystem check in place.
PR Check ResultsEcosystem✅ ecosystem check detected no changes. BenchmarkLinuxWindows |
MichaReiser
added
internal
Merged
konstin
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2023
| @@ -10,6 +11,14 @@ impl FormatNodeRule<StmtExpr> for FormatStmtExpr { | |||
| fn fmt_fields(&self, item: &StmtExpr, f: &mut PyFormatter) -> FormatResult<()> { | |||
| let StmtExpr { value, .. } = item; | |||
|
|
|||
| if let Some(constant) = value.as_constant_expr() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using implicit concatenations on statement level feels strange to me, do we have any examples of that in the wild
MichaReiser
force-pushed
the
format-implicit-continuation
branch
from
affb113 to
cae5757
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This Branch adds support for formatting implicit string continuations. We could probably come up with something faster that combines the
preferred_quotewith the detection of implicit continuation but I don't think that it's worth optimizing just yet.Test Plan
I added new unit tests because black's test suite has not a single implicit continuation.
I ran the stability check against the cpython project.