`--call-parentheses None` removes intervening comment

[tmillr]

Before:

wk.add(
  { { key, "zv" .. key, "Same, but open folds" } }
  -- { noremap = true, mode = { 'n', key:find '^<' and 'v' or 'x' } }
)

After:

wk.add { { key, "zv" .. key, "Same, but open folds" } }

[tmillr]

This caught me off-guard and I had to debug a bit to figure out what the cause was.

Idk what the best solution is here, but removing the comments completely isn't (if it can be avoided). --verify doesn't seem to catch this either, and I don't believe this has anything to do with the syntax setting.

Probably either the comment should be moved to the following line, or the whole thing left as-is uncollapsed?

[JohnnyMorganz]

In this situation, should we just leave the parentheses alone to keep it formatted as is? Or preferred if we still try to remove the parentheses and move the comment around? The latter should still be possible, but agree will need to think where the comment should go

[tmillr]

I'd say formatting it and moving the comment would be best in theory, but that might cause issues with carefully-placed tool annotation comments (e.g. linter, lsp). Well, probably not in this specific case as only a ) follows (but see below).

OTOH, leaving it as-is is the safer bet and means it won't "break" anything like dev-tools, but specific instances won't adhere to the formatting (although I think this is rather normal/expected behavior when it comes to most code formatters, and not a big deal). This is probably easier to implement and maintain as well (more generalized, all such cases would have the same solution).

I just realized that this fails as well (moving the comment to come first):

wk.add(
  -- { noremap = true, mode = { 'n', key:find '^<' and 'v' or 'x' } }
  { { key, "zv" .. key, "Same, but open folds" } }
)

Round 1

wk.add-- { noremap = true, mode = { 'n', key:find '^<' and 'v' or 'x' } }
 { { key, "zv" .. key, "Same, but open folds" } }

Round 2 (gets caught by --verify if it is passed)

wk
  .add -- { noremap = true, mode = { 'n', key:find '^<' and 'v' or 'x' } } { { key, "zv" .. key, "Same, but open folds" } }

---

Also if it's not too difficult to implement, having verify also check for removed comments might be useful.

[JohnnyMorganz]

Going to take the easy way out for now - if the comments are leading, we'll keep the parentheses. Except for if the comment is trailing on the expression, as that is safe to keep. The test examples in the PR will show it better

[tmillr]

Perfect. Yeah I think leaving the formatting as-is (or rather, not collapsing) when there's an intervening comment is the correct decision. This will be the most compatible with external tooling (annotations/doc comments etc.), and it also provides an ad-hoc way to force expanded formatting.

E.g. maybe it's silly, but sometimes I do:

local function f() --
  return 'foo'
end

to avoid collapsing small function declarations/statements. I don't change my settings because small callbacks and anonymous funcs (passed directly as a call argument) are nice to have collapsed.

---

Also I'm assuming that other formatting changes are still applied in this case? Like fixing up spacing and quotes.

[JohnnyMorganz]

Yeah that's correct, we still format the node properly, but we do it in the same way we format other calls where we keep the parens