This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 31, 2023. It is now read-only.
refactor(rome_js_formatter): Support FormatRules with options
#2757
Conversation
This file contains 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
Deploying with
|
| Latest commit: |
18c8f7c
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://7051f04f.tools-8rn.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://feat-format-rule-options.tools-8rn.pages.dev |
MichaReiser
commented
Jun 21, 2022
| impl FormatRule<JsArrayElementList> for FormatJsArrayElementList { | ||
| type Context = JsFormatContext; | ||
| #[derive(Debug, Clone, Default)] | ||
| pub struct FormatJsArrayElementList { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Format rule with custom options
MichaReiser
commented
Jun 21, 2022
| let elements = format_with(|f| { | ||
| FormatJsArrayElementList::format_with_group_id(&elements, f, Some(group_id)) | ||
| }); | ||
| let elements = elements.format().with_options(Some(group_id)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Usage of the new API
MichaReiser
force-pushed
the
feat/format-rule-options
branch
from
e704c4f
to
95d3e99
Compare
|
!bench_formatter |
Formatter Benchmark Results |
This is interesting. I also noticed that the
@leops @xunilrj do you have any idea where this regression might be coming from? |
MichaReiser
force-pushed
the
feat/format-rule-options
branch
from
95d3e99
to
18c8f7c
Compare
|
!bench_formatter |
Formatter Benchmark Results |
|
I noticed that you force pushed and the benchmarker is now in a decent shape. What did you change between the two benchs? |
ematipico
reviewed
Jun 21, 2022
| impl FormatNodeFields<TsVoidType> for FormatNodeRule<TsVoidType> { | ||
| fn fmt_fields(node: &TsVoidType, f: &mut JsFormatter) -> FormatResult<()> { | ||
| #[derive(Debug, Clone, Default)] | ||
| pub struct FormatTsVoidType; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should everything be pub? Isn't pub(crate) enough?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I used pub(crate) first with the same motivation you just mentioned but the problem is that the types are used as associated types in AsFormat and IntoFormat
error[E0446]: crate-private type `FormatJsScript` in public interface
--> crates/rome_js_formatter/src/generated.rs:12:5
|
12 | / type Format = FormatRefWithRule<
13 | | 'a,
14 | | rome_js_syntax::JsScript,
15 | | crate::js::auxiliary::script::FormatJsScript,
16 | | >;
| |______^ can't leak crate-private type
|
::: crates/rome_js_formatter/src/js/auxiliary/script.rs:9:1
|
9 | pub(crate) struct FormatJsScript;
| --------------------------------- `FormatJsScript` declared as crate-private
| impl FormatNodeFields<JsExportDefaultExpressionClause> for FormatNodeRule<JsExportDefaultExpressionClause> { | ||
| fn fmt_fields(node: &JsExportDefaultExpressionClause, f: &mut JsFormatter) -> FormatResult<()> { | ||
| #[derive(Debug, Clone, Default)] | ||
| pub struct FormatJsExportDefaultExpressionClause; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So now the structs are created inside the single file and in the generated.rs we have only the implementation of the traits?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's correct. The definition in the implementation file is necessary so that you can customise the rules fields without the codegen overriding it.
ematipico
approved these changes
Jun 21, 2022
I added an |
leops
approved these changes
Jun 22, 2022
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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.
Summary
To this point, it hasn't been possible to customize the formatting of a
FormatRule. The only way to pass additional data has been by creating an additional method on the struct that takes additional parameters and call that method instead. Doing so comes with the risk that this will accidentally by-pass the node's suppression check.This PR adds a way to
FormatRules to be parametrized by options which can be useful to e.g. pass a group id from one rule to another. I did so byfmtsignature ofFormatRuleto takeselfby reference (so that the rule is able to access the options)FormatRuleWithOptionstrait that rules with options can implement and thatFormatOwnedWithRuleandFormatRefWithRuleautomatically implement if the inner rule supports options. This makes it possible to do writeelements.format().with_options(options)rather than usingformat_with(|f| MyFormatRule::new(options).fmt(elements, f))FormatNodeRuleto a trait so that each rule has its own struct that can have additional optionsAlternatives
An alternative to the design I implemented in this PR is to extend
FormatContextorFormatStateto store additional data, either as a bag of values or using static values. Storing the data on the context would have the added benefit that it becomes possible to pass data arbitrarily deep but comes at the cost that the data needs to be part of the snapshot and tracking where the data gets written and read becomes more difficult.The main reasons why I didn't go for that approach is that it isn't needed today and that the data is part of the state and needs to support snapshots, as well as nested calls. Supporting snapshots can be as straightforward as copying the data (comes at a cost) and recurring can be supported in a similar way as we support it in the parser by storing the old value on the stack and putting it back into place if the inner formatting exits.
Test Plan
cargo testFormatJsArrayElementListnow uses the new options infrastructure.