Repository navigation
ast: Different FormattedValue expressions have same col_offset information #81639
Description
Activity
WeijarZ commented
on Jul 1, 2019 WeijarZmannequinMannequinAuthorThis express
f"{x}{x}{y}"
will produce ast tree:
{
"$node": "Module",
"body": [
{
"$node": "Expr",
"value": {
"$node": "JoinedStr",
"values": [
{
"$node": "FormattedValue",
"value": {
"$node": "Name",
"id": "x",
"ctx": {
"$node": "Load"
},
"lineno": 1,
"col_offset": 3
},
"conversion": -1,
"format_spec": null,
"lineno": 1,
"col_offset": 0
},
{
"$node": "FormattedValue",
"value": {
"$node": "Name",
"id": "x",
"ctx": {
"$node": "Load"
},
"lineno": 1,
"col_offset": 3
},
"conversion": -1,
"format_spec": null,
"lineno": 1,
"col_offset": 0
},
{
"$node": "FormattedValue",
"value": {
"$node": "Name",
"id": "y",
"ctx": {
"$node": "Load"
},
"lineno": 1,
"col_offset": 9
},
"conversion": -1,
"format_spec": null,
"lineno": 1,
"col_offset": 0
}
],
"lineno": 1,
"col_offset": 0
},
"lineno": 1,
"col_offset": 0
}
]
}These two variable 'x' has same col_offset '3', is it wrong?
I'm working on overhauling how these are calculated. But it's complex, and is taking a while.
I still see this problem with 3.10, which I thought might have fixed this.
@lys.nikolaou: any ideas on this?
I still see this problem with 3.10, which I thought might have fixed this.
Nope, that's still true in 3.10.I'm working on overhauling how these are calculated. But it's complex, and is taking a while.
In short, the FormattedValue nodes all have the exact same lineno's and col_offset's, which are also identical to those of the enclosing JoinedStr node. These values are equal to lineno and col_offset of the first STRING token and end_lineno and end_col_offset of the last STRING token (note that the grammar accepts a STRING+ node).any ideas on this?
Moving f-string parsing to the parser, which we've been talking about lately, would solve this. But this will probably take some time, since I currently do not have the time. It's probably going to be a good project for this coming fall.Another alternative, in case we don't want to wait until then, would be for the handwritten f-string parser to have its own instances of a lineno and col_offset, so that they can be used when the FormattedValue nodes are created. This would probably also require some effort though, so I'm not sure we want to do it, before we really know if we're gonnna proceed with the "moving f-string parsing to PEG" project.
I think waiting until we decide what to do with the parser makes sense. This problem has been around for a while, and while it's unfortunate I don't think it's worth heroic measures to fix.
This was fixed in #27729, right?
I'm not sure whether it's been completely fixed, definitely there's been improvements since the issue was opened here. We're working on moving f-string parsing into the PEG parser, which'll certainly help close this once and for all.
The PR I linked includes fixing FormattedValues which contain identical-looking expressions, which I think is the problem being described here. The specific example is fixed for me in 3.9.7 and 3.10.
Are there any remaining problems you know of relating to incorrect lineno/col_offset in AST nodes?
It seems not fixed at least until 3.11
Python 3.11.1 (main, Feb 4 2023, 11:11:18) [Clang 14.0.0 (clang-1400.0.29.202)] on darwin >>> import ast >>> expr = ast.parse('''\n\n\n\n\nf"Warning: '{fieldname}' should be a list, got type '{typename}'"''').body[0] >>> expr.value.values [<ast.Constant object at 0x1004e9c90>, <ast.FormattedValue object at 0x1004ebc70>, <ast.Constant object at 0x1004ea2c0>, <ast.FormattedValue object at 0x1004eb3a0>, <ast.Constant object at 0x1004eb190>] >>> def l(n): return ((n.lineno, n.col_offset), (n.end_lineno, n.end_col_offset)) ... >>> for v in expr.value.values: print(l(v)) ... ((6, 0), (6, 65)) ((6, 0), (6, 65)) ((6, 0), (6, 65)) ((6, 0), (6, 65)) ((6, 0), (6, 65))
This has been fixed in 3.12 after the PEP 701 implementation (#102855) was merged. Closing.
Reacted by Frank Hoffmann
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields: