Set contains_keywords flag for implicit gets($/, chomp: true) method to handle -l CLI option

[andrykonchin]

I suppose the contains_keywords flag is missing here because arguments contain keyword arguments chomp: true .

Examples before and after:

bin/prism parse -n -l -e 'puts $_.end_with?("\n")'

AST before:

@ ProgramNode (location: (1,0)-(1,0))
├── flags: ∅
├── locals: []
└── statements:
    @ StatementsNode (location: (1,0)-(1,0))
    ├── flags: ∅
    └── body: (length: 1)
        └── @ WhileNode (location: (1,0)-(1,0))
            ├── flags: newline
            ├── keyword_loc: (1,0)-(1,0) = ""
            ├── closing_loc: (1,0)-(1,0) = ""
            ├── predicate:
            │   @ CallNode (location: (1,0)-(1,0))
            │   ├── flags: ignore_visibility
            │   ├── receiver: ∅
            │   ├── call_operator_loc: ∅
            │   ├── name: :gets
            │   ├── message_loc: ∅
            │   ├── opening_loc: ∅
            │   ├── arguments:
            │   │   @ ArgumentsNode (location: (1,0)-(1,23))
            │   │   ├── flags: ∅
            │   │   └── arguments: (length: 2)
...

AST after:

@ ProgramNode (location: (1,0)-(1,0))
├── flags: ∅
├── locals: []
└── statements:
    @ StatementsNode (location: (1,0)-(1,0))
    ├── flags: ∅
    └── body: (length: 1)
        └── @ WhileNode (location: (1,0)-(1,0))
            ├── flags: newline
            ├── keyword_loc: (1,0)-(1,0) = ""
            ├── closing_loc: (1,0)-(1,0) = ""
            ├── predicate:
            │   @ CallNode (location: (1,0)-(1,0))
            │   ├── flags: ignore_visibility
            │   ├── receiver: ∅
            │   ├── call_operator_loc: ∅
            │   ├── name: :gets
            │   ├── message_loc: ∅
            │   ├── opening_loc: ∅
            │   ├── arguments:
            │   │   @ ArgumentsNode (location: (1,0)-(1,23))
            │   │   ├── flags: contains_keywords

[andrykonchin]

Wondering if it's better to set this flag in pm_arguments_node_arguments_append

[kddnewton]

That's okay, I think this is fine here.

[andrykonchin]

Also wondering if there is a convenient place for a test for this case - fixing an issue without adding tests seems wrong to me.

[kddnewton]

Yeah, could you put this in command_line_test.rb?

[andrykonchin]

Yeah, will add the test.

[kddnewton]

Approve, but if you don't mind adding a quick test that would be good

[kddnewton]

Yeah, could you put this in command_line_test.rb?