bug#61017: 29.0.60; ruby-ts-mode indents class between two lines incorrectly

[Aaron Jensen]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:00 PM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2023 02:45, Aaron Jensen wrote:
>
> >>>> Is it enough of an improvement?
> >>>
> >>> That seems to make indentation after an open def not happen:
> >>>
> >>> def foo
> >>> bar
> >>> end
> >>
> >> Not sure what you mean. Is that an example with an "open def"? "end"
> >> seems to be closing it. In the final state, it indents correctly here.
> >
> > Sorry, that's what I meant. If I do type exactly that and do not
> > reindent, I end up with that though (closing with the end does not
> > cause the previous line to reindent)
>
> All right.
>
> But if the proposed patch doesn't make things worse for this example, we
> might as well install it. Because this "unclosed def" case is distinct
> from the one you filed this bug report regarding.

Sounds good to me.

> >>> I applied the patch manually though, so maybe you can confirm that you
> >>> see the same thing?
> >>
> >> If I have a buffer with just the first line:
> >>
> >>     def foo
> >>
> >> then it indeed doesn't indent. But I think that happens with or without
> >> this patch?
> >>
> >> It's a slightly different problem: the grammar parses this code example
> >> without ERROR nodes, like a full method, for some reason:
> >>
> >>     (program
> >>      (method def body: (identifier) end))
> >>
> >> And the end position of the "virtual" end node stays at the previous
> >> line, so our code doesn't know it's inside the method.
> >>
> >> I suppose we could add some tricky predicate like (is the previous node
> >> a method with an "end" child that is 0 characters long), but the grammar
> >> might change (we should look for any previous reported issues about this
> >> behavior, or maybe ones that resulted in it), and it only happen this
> >> way when there is nothing after "def xyz" in the buffer.
> >
> > I wonder if this is mistaken handling of endless methods?
>
> Those parse to nodes that look a little different (no "end"):
>
>    (program
>     (method def body: (identifier) = (integer)))
>
> So I'm not sure.
>
> > I can't
> > think of a reason that it would parse like that. Should that be
> > reported upstream?
>
> I filed https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-ruby/issues/234,
> let's see if there is any response.

Thank you.

Aaron