Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jsx ast #7286

Draft
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Jsx ast #7286

wants to merge 12 commits into from

Conversation

nojaf
Copy link
Collaborator

@nojaf nojaf commented Feb 8, 2025

This is a part of #7283.
I'm introducing Pexp_jsx_fragment to represent fragment syntax <></>.

I found it insightful to just try it out and see what code changes are necessary.

In short a fragment is now parsed as:

        expression 
          attribute  "JSX"
            []
          Pexp_construct "::" 
          Some
            expression 
              Pexp_tuple
              [
                expression 
                  attribute  "JSX"
                    []
                  Pexp_apply
                  expression 
                    Pexp_ident "SectionHeader.createElement" 
                  [
                    <arg>
                    Labelled "children"
                      expression 
                        Pexp_construct "::" 
                        Some
                          expression 
                            Pexp_tuple
                            [
                              expression 
                                attribute  "res.braces"
                                  []
                                Pexp_apply
                                expression 
                                  Pexp_ident "React.string" 
                                [
                                  <arg>
                                  Nolabel
                                    expression 
                                      Pexp_constant PConst_string ("abc",Some "*j")
                                ]
                              expression 
                                Pexp_construct "[]" 
                                None
                            ]
                    <arg>
                    Nolabel
                      expression 
                        Pexp_construct "()" 
                        None
                  ]
                expression 
                  Pexp_construct "[]" 
                  None
              ]

after this change it becomes:

        expression 
          Pexp_jsx_fragment          [
            expression 
              attribute  "JSX"
                []
              Pexp_apply
              expression 
                Pexp_ident "SectionHeader.createElement" 
              [
                <arg>
                Labelled "children"
                  expression 
                    Pexp_construct "::" 
                    Some
                      expression 
                        Pexp_tuple
                        [
                          expression 
                            attribute  "res.braces"
                              []
                            Pexp_apply
                            expression 
                              Pexp_ident "React.string" 
                            [
                              <arg>
                              Nolabel
                                expression 
                                  Pexp_constant PConst_string ("abc",Some "*j")
                            ]
                          expression 
                            Pexp_construct "[]" 
                            None
                        ]
                <arg>
                Nolabel
                  expression 
                    Pexp_construct "()" 
                    None
              ]
          ]

I'll add some comment to relevant changes.


(*
* jsx-fragment ::=
* | <> </>
* | <> jsx-children </>
*)
and parse_jsx_fragment p =
and parse_jsx_fragment start_pos p =
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I prefer ranges to be accurate. The location should start at the opening < token.

Doc.group
(Doc.concat
[
line_sep;
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@shulhi this part isn't 100% correct.
I'm not familiar enough with this part of the codebase.

let z1 = <> <SectionHeader> {React.string("abc")} </SectionHeader> </>

will be formatted to

let z1 =
<>
  <SectionHeader> {React.string("abc")} </SectionHeader>
</>

so I'm missing some indent here. Not sure how that part works.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Copy link
Member

@shulhi shulhi Feb 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@nojaf I checked, the indentation is handled here,

let should_indent =
match opt_braces with
| Some _ -> false
| _ -> (
ParsetreeViewer.is_binary_expression expr
||
match vb.pvb_expr with
| {
pexp_attributes = [({Location.txt = "res.ternary"}, _)];
pexp_desc = Pexp_ifthenelse (if_expr, _, _);
} ->
ParsetreeViewer.is_binary_expression if_expr
|| ParsetreeViewer.has_attributes if_expr.pexp_attributes
| {pexp_desc = Pexp_newtype _} -> false
| {pexp_attributes = [({Location.txt = "res.taggedTemplate"}, _)]} ->
false
| e ->
ParsetreeViewer.has_attributes e.pexp_attributes
|| ParsetreeViewer.is_array_access e)

You might need to handle the case for Pexp_jsx_fragment here.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, the old code will instead have matched ParsetreeViewer.has_attributes e.pexp_attributes. Indentation now works as before.

@@ -1000,7 +1000,7 @@ Path Objects.Rec.

Complete src/Completion.res 120:7
posCursor:[120:7] posNoWhite:[120:6] Found expr:[119:11->123:1]
posCursor:[120:7] posNoWhite:[120:6] Found expr:[120:5->122:5]
posCursor:[120:7] posNoWhite:[120:6] Found expr:[120:5->123:0]
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes like this are to be expected as the range of a fragment spans from <> till end </>.

posCursor:[9:56] posNoWhite:[9:55] Found expr:[9:13->9:66]
JSX <SectionHeader:[9:13->9:26] > _children:9:26
posCursor:[9:56] posNoWhite:[9:55] Found expr:__ghost__[9:10->9:67]
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This ghost expression is a part of the AstHelper.make_list_expression result.
It is no longer present in the new AST, but it also didn't serve any purpose.
I believe it is okay that this test is slightly different.
In the end the result didn't change.

(* [%id] *)
(* . *)
(* represents <> foo </> , the entire range is stored in the expression , we keep track of >, children and </ *)
| Pexp_jsx_fragment of
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The reason the store the > and </ token is this edge case:
https://rescript-lang.org/try?version=v12.0.0-alpha.8&module=esmodule&code=DYUwLgBA+hC8ECgCQAeCB6AVBAzmATgIYB2A5iBJuhAHzJIDeASiIQMZgB0e+AlmQAoARAFsQACyEBKAL7IU1LBEIiIASQh9S4yFVpA

If we ever want to restore comments I suppose we need the proper anchors.


(*
* jsx-fragment ::=
* | <> </>
* | <> jsx-children </>
*)
and parse_jsx_fragment p =
and parse_jsx_fragment start_pos p =
let children_start_pos = p.Parser.start_pos in
Parser.expect GreaterThan p;
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@shulhi I believe the comment capture isn't working here for:

let _ =
  <> // foobar

  {React.string("m")}
  {React.int(4)}
  </>

I got nothing for:

dune exec res_parser -- A.res -print comments
leading comments:                        

comments inside:

trailing comments:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants