Block statements

[jimfleming]

If someone could play around with this (test it out) I'd appreciate it. I've added some tests and it seems to work great but I want to make sure I didn't miss any edge cases.

This fixes #28

[brettlangdon]

Latest version of jsfmt

$ echo 'var a = 1, b = 2;' | jsfmt -r 'var a = b, c = d -> var a = d, b = c'
var a = 2,
  b = b;

Your version:

$ echo 'var a = 1, b = 2;' | ./bin/jsfmt -r 'var a = b, c = d -> var a = d, b = c'
stdin { [Error: Line 1: Unexpected number] index: 11, lineNumber: 1, column: 12 }

expected?

[jimfleming]

Hmm, good question. The second one sounds more correct. I think I'm missing an "Identifier" check.

[jimfleming]

I can duplicate your results from the command-line. I haven't looked at it in detail yet but, interestingly, I get a different result from the api:

jsfmt.rewrite('var a = 1, b = 2;', 'var a = b, c = d -> var a = d, b = c')
  .toString().should.eql('var a = 2, 1 = b;');

EDIT: Part of the problem is that the result, in either case, is not syntactically correct.

[jimfleming]

Ok, so the first command you posted is actually producing incorrect output. I believe the correct output is 'var a = 2, 1 = b;'.

The new code produces the correct output (however is syntactically invalid). When using the api it will output the correct result. When using the command-line you get a syntax error if formatting (pass --no-format to see the same output as the api).

EDIT: If we wanted to validate the rewritten javascript we could attempt to parse the rewritten code with esprima and throw the error if its invalid. This will slow it down a little and re-parse when formatting from the command-line but maybe worth the check?

[brettlangdon]

@jimfleming re: validating, if we enable formatting on rewrite then it will get parsed by esprima right? or do we do the rewrite while formatting? maybe we can add a cli argument to force re-checking?

[jimfleming]

A new argument is a good idea. Should I update this PR or post another?

On Thursday, May 29, 2014, Brett Langdon notifications@github.com wrote:

@jimfleming https://github.com/jimfleming re: validating, if we enable
formatting on rewrite then it will get parsed by esprima right? or do we do
the rewrite while formatting? maybe we can add a cli argument to force
re-checking?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#47 (comment).

Jim

[brettlangdon]

@jimfleming a new PR probably. how do we expect it will work. Assume reparse (+ format if they want) before actually writing the rewrite to the file?

[jimfleming]

@brettlangdon Yah, if its by option I don't mind the reparsing — I can't think of a clean way with the current arch to pass the pre-parsed version to formatting.

Avoiding the reparsing would require separating out the ast generation from formatting and a format function that accepts just the AST with the exposed api function being a combination of the two (I think). Actually, that might be ok.

EDIT: http://esprima.org/demo/validate.html

[brettlangdon]

hmmm, interesting, think I can get on board for this feature.

Maybe add it as an option that can stand on it's own?

jsfmt --no-format --validate my-script.js
# show me any errors

[jimfleming]

#49

[brettlangdon]

@jimfleming where does the pull request stand? now that we added --validate is this ready to be merged or are there other tests we want to run with it?

[jimfleming]

@brettlangdon From what I can tell this is good to go, assuming you agree. It functions as expected now.

[brettlangdon]

+1