Respect the intent of rules authors when returning atomic patches #1261
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
In scalafixFileEvaluation, there is a possibility to apply only some patches. The current issue, is that we were returning the low level patches, by recursively decomposing even Atomic patches. If the author rule has created an atomic patch that contains two Add patches, we should not decompose it, and therefore `previewPatches()` can only be called with "atomic" patches
bjaglin
reviewed
Oct 26, 2020
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| class CommentFileRule2 extends v1.SyntacticRule("CommentFileRule2") { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| class CommentFileRule2 extends v1.SyntacticRule("CommentFileRule2") { | |
| class CommentFileAtomic extends v1.SyntacticRule("CommentFileAtomic") { |
| val fileEvaluation1 = run1.evaluate().getFileEvaluations.head | ||
| val patches1 = fileEvaluation1.getPatches | ||
| assert(patches1.length == 2) | ||
| val obtained1 = fileEvaluation1.previewPatches().get |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didi an assertion
assertNoDiff(obtained1, obtained2)
| @@ -214,6 +213,74 @@ class ScalafixArgumentsSuite extends AnyFunSuite with DiffAssertions { | |||
| assert(contentAfterRun == fileEvaluation.previewPatches().get) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| test("ScalafixArguments.evaluate retrieve only atomic patches") { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think tests would be more readable (and avoid 1/2 suffixes in variables) if you had more tests with less assertions
| @@ -191,6 +200,20 @@ object PatchInternals { | |||
| loop(patch) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // don't decompose Atomic Patch | |||
| def foreachPatchUnit(patch: Patch)(f: Patch => Unit): Unit = { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is a very generic signature, yet it's used only for accumulation, maybe the 2 new methods could be merged?
mlachkar
commented
Oct 26, 2020
| @@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ object MainOps { | |||
| ctx: RuleCtx, | |||
| index: Option[v0.SemanticdbIndex] | |||
| ): Option[String] = | |||
| Try(tokenPatchApply(ctx, index, patches)).toOption | |||
| Try(patchApply(ctx, index, patches)).toOption | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is in fact a rename.
|
I removed all my small refactoring (renames, and removing |
bjaglin
approved these changes
Oct 26, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
In scalafixFileEvaluation, there is a possibility to apply only some patches.
The current issue, is that we were returning the low level patches, by recursively decomposing even Atomic patches.
If the author rule has created an atomic patch that contains two Add patches, we should not decompose it,
and therefore
previewPatches()can only be called with "atomic" patches