stylerignore sequences must always be in one block

[lorenzwalthert]

With this PR, styling is correct for a stylerignore sequence that contains a cached expression. The solution involves ensuring that a stylerignore sequence is always processed in one block. Closes #1072.

full <- c(
  '# styler: off',
  'skip_if_not_installed("tibble")',
  'local({',
  'x<-1',
  '})',
  '# styler: on'
)
without_ignore <- full[c(-1, -length(full))]
styler:::local_test_setup(cache = TRUE)
styler:::style_text(without_ignore)
#> skip_if_not_installed("tibble")
#> local({
#>   x <- 1
#> })
styler:::style_text(full)
#> # styler: off
#> skip_if_not_installed("tibble")
#> local({
#> x<-1
#> })
#> # styler: on

^{Created on 2022-12-26 with reprex v2.0.2}

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1082 (5b8061a) into main (509bea1) will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1082      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.05%   91.10%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          46       46              
  Lines        2684     2698      +14     
==========================================
+ Hits         2444     2458      +14     
  Misses        240      240              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
R/expr-is.R	86.11% <ø> (ø)
R/rules-line-breaks.R	100.00% <ø> (ø)
R/style-guides.R	99.43% <ø> (ø)
R/nest.R	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
R/stylerignore.R	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
R/transform-block.R	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
R/transform-files.R	97.48% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
R/roxygen-examples.R	98.43% <0.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 509bea1 is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_applying: 49.2ms -> 50.3ms [-1.39%, +5.83%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 849ms -> 850ms [-1.58%, +1.93%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 1.97s -> 1.98s [-1.5%, +2.16%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 509bea1 is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_applying: 48.4ms -> 48.6ms [-0.33%, +1.02%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 853ms -> 853ms [-0.82%, +0.87%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 2.01s -> 2.02s [-0.6%, +0.67%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

[lorenzwalthert]

@IndrajeetPatil maybe you can have a look if you have time. I know the internals are quite complex, so I don't expect you to understand that. Maybe more just if the docs are grammatically understandable and maybe if we should add more tests and if yes which ones.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 509bea1 is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_applying: 44ms -> 44.2ms [-1.13%, +2.15%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 756ms -> 761ms [-0.08%, +1.3%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 1.77s -> 1.77s [-0.35%, +0.56%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

[IndrajeetPatil]

Thanks, @lorenzwalthert! Looks like this must have been a nightmare to debug.

I couldn't follow all the changes in the code, but the comments and the tests confirm that this fixes the original issue.

I think the current set of tests is enough for now. I already styled a few repos to check for any regressions, and found none.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 99f6502 is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_applying: 43.8ms -> 44ms [-0.07%, +1.37%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 761ms -> 763ms [-0.42%, +0.93%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 1.81s -> 1.81s [-0.55%, +1.04%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

[lorenzwalthert]

Great, thanks @IndrajeetPatil 🥳. To me, this was a major bug and I wonder why no one before found it. Glad we solved it.