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

rustfmt removes crucial code from macro calls (regression) #6424

Open
nazar-pc opened this issue Dec 22, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

rustfmt removes crucial code from macro calls (regression) #6424

nazar-pc opened this issue Dec 22, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@nazar-pc
Copy link

nazar-pc commented Dec 22, 2024

Probably related to #6418, but not 100% sure.

rustfmt recently started formatting code like this incorrectly:

frame_support::construct_runtime!(
    pub struct Test {
        System: frame_system = 0,
        SelfDomainId: pallet_domain_id = 1,
    }
);

Specifically, it removes = NUMBER for some reason, resulting in this:

frame_support::construct_runtime!(
    pub struct Test {
        System: frame_system,
        SelfDomainId: pallet_domain_id,
    }
);

This is incorrect and not an equivalent change.

Affected version:

rustfmt 1.8.0-nightly (426d173423 2024-12-21)

Version that I used previously and that worked correctly:

rustfmt 1.8.0-nightly (4392847410 2024-10-21)
@ytmimi
Copy link
Contributor

ytmimi commented Dec 22, 2024

Thanks for the report. I tracked this change in behavior back to rust-lang/rust#129514

@nazar-pc
Copy link
Author

Note that it also removes values which are not contiguous (let's say if = 0 is replaced with = 60), it just removes them all regardless.

@ytmimi
Copy link
Contributor

ytmimi commented Dec 22, 2024

@nazar-pc sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding what you're getting at. Could you provide a code snippet?

@nazar-pc
Copy link
Author

Sure:

frame_support::construct_runtime!(
    pub struct Test {
        System: frame_system = 60,
        SelfDomainId: pallet_domain_id = 1,
    }
);

In this case both will be removed too. I just assumed that in some cases it might remove things due to considering them being "the default", but no.

@ytmimi
Copy link
Contributor

ytmimi commented Dec 22, 2024

Thanks for the update. No, I don't think that's the case. An explanation for what's going on here can be found at rust-lang/rust#134668

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants