-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
Avoid omitting parentheses for trailing attributes on call expressions #6322
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you test if we need the same for
Subscript
? Because it has the same pattern or is it not required because we never want to break subscripts?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did look into this but perhaps I didn't understand what you're referencing. Are you referring to a subscript with a trailing attribute, like
foo[bar].baz
? Or a subscript following a function call, likefoo(bar)[baz]
? I believe I added test coverage for both, and both are consistent with Black.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This PR fixes
Where the last item is a call chain. The fix was to correctly set
last
to the call because the callee is to the left of the call. This fixedhas_parentheses
andhas_own_parentheses
to returntrue
.Now, we have a similar situation with subscript where we visit the value to the left of the subscript. Meaning
a[b]
ends with the subscript and not the nodea
(the subscript should be last).Now, whether it should apply that layout is a different question, but it currently seems inconsistent because
has_parentheses
returnstrue
, but we don't set the subscript to the last node.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Black output:
So black prefers not to break subscripts. Can we remove the
Subscript
case fromhas_own_parentheses
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will investigate, thank you for clarifying.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can merge this in the meantime. Maybe update the title?