[BUG] [Formatter] Shadowing built-in function breaks template

[z64]

• I'm on the latest version of djLint
• I've searched the issues
• I've read the docs

System Info

• OS: Arch Linux
• Python Version 3.11.8
• djLint Version 1.34.0
• template language: Jinja

Issue

If the template shadows a built-in function, such as dir, it gets replaced in the template with invalid code that breaks the template.

How To Reproduce

Create a template file:

{% set dir = "example" %}
{% set foo = dir %}

Running djlint --reformat produces:

$ djlint --reformat test.html.j2

Reformatting 1/1 files


test.html.j2
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@

 {% set dir = "example" %}
-{% set foo = dir %}
+{% set foo = <built-in function dir> %}

As in, the template's contents is now literally:

{% set dir = "example" %}
{% set foo = <built-in function dir> %}

Which will crash when evaluated.

[FLiliequist]

I’ve also encountered an similar issue when trying to format a set function. When trying to format
{% set x = print(“Hello”) %}
the result will be

Hello
{% set x = None %}

This behaviour suggests that the code after the equal sign is being executed as Python code, which I belive is unintended behaviour for a linter.

Upon reviewing the code quickly, I suspect that the bug comes from the usage of the eval function here indent.py. However, I’m not sure about purpose of the eval function here.

Maybe someone brighter than me can understand the eval statement?"

[z64]

Hi @FLiliequist , thanks for those details. This seems to be the commit that introduced eval into this file:

85aca4c

for the purpose of formatting nodes that look like JSON5 or lists - it seems later commits might of increased the scope of where this code is executed so that now examples like yours & mine are now evaluated as well; seemingly for formatting functions / function parameters, etc.?

I'm not sure if its supposed to, but it seems like --no-function-formatting option doesn't fix this either.

[FLiliequist]

Nice finding :)

I have found a quick workaround for it, if I use the --no-set-formatting flag it wont try to format the {% set %}. Not a good solution but it doesn't break the code atleast :D

[z64]

I have found a quick workaround for it, if I use the --no-set-formatting flag it wont try to format the {% set %}. Not a good solution but it doesn't break the code atleast :D

Ohhh I completely missed that. Thank you!