[clang-format] Fix brace wrapping for Java records

[hannesbraun]

The brace wrapping for Java records should now behave similar to classes. Before, opening braces for Java records were always placed in the same line as the record definition.

I'm not 100% sure if this is the correct way to fix this. If not, let me know.

[github-actions]

Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!

This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified.

If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page.

If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using @ followed by their GitHub username.

If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers.

If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide.

You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-format

Author: Hannes Braun (hannesbraun)

Changes

The brace wrapping for Java records should now behave similar to classes. Before, opening braces for Java records were always placed in the same line as the record definition.

I'm not 100% sure if this is the correct way to fix this. If not, let me know.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/164711.diff

3 Files Affected:

• (modified) clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineFormatter.cpp (+3-3)
• (modified) clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp (+8-4)
• (modified) clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp (+12)

diff --git a/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineFormatter.cpp b/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineFormatter.cpp
index ac9c81d4416c9..383a6bc08cf38 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineFormatter.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineFormatter.cpp
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ class LineJoiner {
       if (Tok && Tok->is(tok::kw_typedef))
         Tok = Tok->getNextNonComment();
       if (Tok && Tok->isOneOf(tok::kw_class, tok::kw_struct, tok::kw_union,
-                              tok::kw_extern, Keywords.kw_interface)) {
+                              tok::kw_extern, Keywords.kw_interface, Keywords.kw_record)) {
         return !Style.BraceWrapping.SplitEmptyRecord && EmptyBlock
                    ? tryMergeSimpleBlock(I, E, Limit)
                    : 0;
@@ -498,7 +498,7 @@ class LineJoiner {
         ShouldMerge = Style.AllowShortEnumsOnASingleLine;
       } else if (TheLine->Last->is(TT_CompoundRequirementLBrace)) {
         ShouldMerge = Style.AllowShortCompoundRequirementOnASingleLine;
-      } else if (TheLine->Last->isOneOf(TT_ClassLBrace, TT_StructLBrace)) {
+      } else if (TheLine->Last->isOneOf(TT_ClassLBrace, TT_StructLBrace, TT_RecordLBrace)) {
         // NOTE: We use AfterClass (whereas AfterStruct exists) for both classes
         // and structs, but it seems that wrapping is still handled correctly
         // elsewhere.
@@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ class LineJoiner {
                        !Style.BraceWrapping.SplitEmptyRecord);
       } else if (TheLine->InPPDirective ||
                  TheLine->First->isNoneOf(tok::kw_class, tok::kw_enum,
-                                          tok::kw_struct)) {
+                                          tok::kw_struct, Keywords.kw_record)) {
         // Try to merge a block with left brace unwrapped that wasn't yet
         // covered.
         ShouldMerge = !Style.BraceWrapping.AfterFunction ||
diff --git a/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp b/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp
index 5e2584edac8f4..7df3444b4e650 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp
@@ -948,7 +948,11 @@ static bool isIIFE(const UnwrappedLine &Line,
 }
 
 static bool ShouldBreakBeforeBrace(const FormatStyle &Style,
-                                   const FormatToken &InitialToken) {
+                                   const FormatToken &InitialToken,
+                                   const bool IsJavaRecord) {
+  if (IsJavaRecord)
+    return Style.BraceWrapping.AfterClass;
+
   tok::TokenKind Kind = InitialToken.Tok.getKind();
   if (InitialToken.is(TT_NamespaceMacro))
     Kind = tok::kw_namespace;
@@ -3200,7 +3204,7 @@ void UnwrappedLineParser::parseNamespace() {
   if (FormatTok->is(tok::l_brace)) {
     FormatTok->setFinalizedType(TT_NamespaceLBrace);
 
-    if (ShouldBreakBeforeBrace(Style, InitialToken))
+    if (ShouldBreakBeforeBrace(Style, InitialToken, false))
       addUnwrappedLine();
 
     unsigned AddLevels =
@@ -3865,7 +3869,7 @@ bool UnwrappedLineParser::parseEnum() {
   }
 
   if (!Style.AllowShortEnumsOnASingleLine &&
-      ShouldBreakBeforeBrace(Style, InitialToken)) {
+      ShouldBreakBeforeBrace(Style, InitialToken, false)) {
     addUnwrappedLine();
   }
   // Parse enum body.
@@ -4160,7 +4164,7 @@ void UnwrappedLineParser::parseRecord(bool ParseAsExpr, bool IsJavaRecord) {
     if (ParseAsExpr) {
       parseChildBlock();
     } else {
-      if (ShouldBreakBeforeBrace(Style, InitialToken))
+      if (ShouldBreakBeforeBrace(Style, InitialToken, IsJavaRecord))
         addUnwrappedLine();
 
       unsigned AddLevels = Style.IndentAccessModifiers ? 2u : 1u;
diff --git a/clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp b/clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp
index ce68f91bef02a..9e3572fb88ee5 100644
--- a/clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp
+++ b/clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp
@@ -28918,6 +28918,18 @@ TEST_F(FormatTest, KeywordedFunctionLikeMacros) {
                Style);
 }
 
+TEST_F(FormatTest, BreakAfterJavaRecord) {
+  auto Style = getLLVMStyle();
+  Style.Language = FormatStyle::LK_Java;
+  Style.EmptyLineBeforeAccessModifier = FormatStyle::ELBAMS_Never;
+  Style.BreakBeforeBraces = FormatStyle::BS_Custom;
+  Style.BraceWrapping.AfterClass = true;
+  Style.BraceWrapping.SplitEmptyRecord = true;
+
+  verifyFormat("public record Foo(int i)\n{\n}", "public record Foo(int i) {}",
+               Style);
+}
+
 } // namespace
 } // namespace test
 } // namespace format

[hannesbraun]

@owenca

[github-actions]

✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter.

[hannesbraun]

@HazardyKnusperkeks Can you merge this?

[github-actions]

@hannesbraun Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project!

Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR.

Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues.

How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here.

If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again.

If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done!