feat(rome_js_formatter): Template formatting #3063
Conversation
|
Congratulation! We reached 80%!!!! |
Deploying with
|
| Latest commit: |
9461237
|
| Status: | ⚡️ Build in progress... |
crates/rome_js_formatter/src/js/expressions/arrow_function_expression.rs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
crates/rome_js_formatter/src/js/expressions/template_chunk_element.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
crates/rome_js_formatter/src/js/expressions/template_element.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
crates/rome_js_formatter/src/js/expressions/template_element.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| for _ in 1..level { | ||
| indented = FormatElement::Indent(vec![indented].into_boxed_slice()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It nests indents for as long until it reaches the desired indent level, as explained in the comment at the top of the format width
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And we start from 1 because we checked 0 before? If level is 1 the indentation is now 2?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I changed it to go from 0..level, and remove the indent around the initial element. That's probably easier to understand
This PR improves Rome's formatting of `JsTemplate`s and `TsTemplate`s to closer match Prettier's formatting. It mainly implements: * simple expressions that never break even if the template literal, as a result thereof, exceeds the line width * Aligning expressions in template literals with the last template chunk This PR does not implement Prettier's custom formatting of `Jest` specs, and it doesn't implement custom comments formatting. ## Tests I manually verified the snapshot changes. There are some remaining differences but they are rooted in the fact that some, expression formatting isn't compatible with prettier yet (mainly binary expression, call arguments)
MichaReiser
force-pushed
the
feat/template-formatting
branch
from
f0cd774 to
8c57ad3
Compare
crates/rome_js_formatter/src/js/expressions/template_element.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| for _ in 1..level { | ||
| indented = FormatElement::Indent(vec![indented].into_boxed_slice()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And we start from 1 because we checked 0 before? If level is 1 the indentation is now 2?
| @@ -18,15 +18,15 @@ output | |||
| `; | |||
|
|
|||
| // don't break | |||
| const bar =`but where will ${this.fanta} wrap ${baz} ${"hello"} template literal? ${bar.ff.sss} long long long long ${foo.[3]} long long long long long long`; | |||
| const bar =`but where will ${this.fanta} wrap ${baz} ${"hello"} template literal? ${bar.ff.sss} long long long long ${foo[3]} long long long long long long`; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did you change the source of this line?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because it wasn't valid Javascript ${foo.[3]} is not valid
| @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ repository = "https://github.com/rome/tools" | |||
| license = "MIT" | |||
|
|
|||
| [package.metadata.wasm-pack.profile.dev] | |||
| # wasm-opt = ['-O1'] | |||
| wasm-opt = ['-O1'] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this change intentional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was unintentionall that I commited this commented out :D
This is needed because our playground stack overflows, even for very small samples if we don't perform at least some wasm optimisations.
MichaReiser
force-pushed
the
feat/template-formatting
branch
from
9461237 to
ace8428
Compare
This PR improves Rome's formatting of
JsTemplates andTsTemplates to closer match Prettier's formatting.It mainly implements:
This PR does not implement Prettier's custom formatting of
Jestspecs, and it doesn't implement custom comments formatting.Closes #2446
Tests
I manually verified the snapshot changes. There are some remaining differences but they are rooted in the fact that some, expression formatting isn't compatible with prettier yet (mainly binary expression, call arguments), or that prettier supports formatting HTML, graphql, etc.
File Based Average Prettier Similarity: 79.75% -> 80.03%
Line Based Average Prettier Similarity: 76.52% -> 76.85%