Closes 3937
It's unclear which change fixed the `format_code_in_doc_comments=true`
issue brought up in this issue, however I'm unable to reproduce the
error on the current master.
The added test cases should serve to prevent a regression.
It's unclear which PR resolved this issue, however the behavior of
adding inline comments to the next line can't be reproduced.
These test cases should serve to prevent a regression.
The v2 implementation uses Node 12, which is end-of-life on April 30, 2022.
See https://nodejs.org/en/about/releases/. Update to v3, which is based on
Node 16 whose support lasts until April 30, 2024.
* fix(rustfmt): fix struct field formatting with doc comments present
Fixes#5215
* fix review feedbacks
* add unit test without doc comment
* move tests to a seperate file
* add additional test cases
* reintroduce a newline at the of test/souce/structs.rs
Fixes 5270
Previously, rustfmt only checked the `merge_derives` configuration value
to determine if it should merge_derives. This lead to derives being
merged even when annotated with the `rustfmt::skip` attribute.
Now, rustfmt also checks if derives are explicitly being skipped in the
current context via the `rustfmt::skip` attribute.
Fixes 5273
Previously, rustfmt searched for the start of a struct body after the
opening `{`. In most cases this works just fine, but const values can
also be defined between `{ }`, which lead to issues when rewriting the
struct body.
Now, rustfmt will search for the `{` after the generic argument list to
guarantee that the `{` it finds is the start of the struct body.
There are a few places were we have to construct it, though, and a few
places that are more invasive to change. To do this, we create a
constructor with a long obvious name.
More robust fallback for `use` suggestion
Our old way to suggest where to add `use`s would first look for pre-existing `use`s in the relevant crate/module, and if there are *no* uses, it would fallback on trying to use another item as the basis for the suggestion.
But this was fragile, as illustrated in issue #87613
This PR instead identifies span of the first token after any inner attributes, and uses *that* as the fallback for the `use` suggestion.
Fix#87613
Fixes 5167
When ``a.rs`` and ``a/mod.rs`` are both present we would emit an error
message telling the user that the module couldn't be found. However,
this behavior is misleading because we're dealing with an ambiguous
module path, not a "file not found" error.
Is the file ``a.rs`` or is it ``a/mod.rs``? Rustfmt can't decide, and
the user needs to resolve this ambiguity themselves.
Now, the error message displayed to the user is in line with what they
would see if they went to compile their code with these conflicting
module names.
When struct_field_align_threshold is non-zero and trailing_comma is set to
"Never," struct field separators are omitted between field groups. This issue is
resolved by forcing separators between groups.
Fixes#4791.
A test is included with a minimal reproducible example.
then we just suggest the first legal position where you could inject a use.
To do this, I added `inject_use_span` field to `ModSpans`, and populate it in
parser (it is the span of the first token found after inner attributes, if any).
Then I rewrote the use-suggestion code to utilize it, and threw out some stuff
that is now unnecessary with this in place. (I think the result is easier to
understand.)
Then I added a test of issue 87613.
