fix: Improve SQL formatter handling of long lines (#1717) #1724
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Fixed an issue where the SQL formatter would corrupt SQL files with long lines by incorrectly moving column aliases to different positions. Changes: - Simplified the diff processing logic to handle changes more directly - Removed complex chunk boundary calculations that were causing misalignment - Use TextEdit.replace for normal changes instead of delete+insert pattern - Added proper bounds checking for all edit operations - Removed the intermediate line movement logic between chunks The formatter now correctly preserves the structure of SQL files with long lines and maintains the association between columns and their aliases. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@anandgupta42 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 3 minutes and 28 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
✨ Finishing Touches
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![ellipsis-dev[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/64358?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed everything up to 59f2fbb in 1 minute and 38 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
113lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
3draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. src/document_formatting_edit_provider/dbtDocumentFormattingEditProvider.ts:115
- Draft comment:
Consider explicitly handling the insertion-at-end-of-document case instead of relying on a ternary operator within the bounds check. Using an early return or a clear separate branch here would improve readability and reduce nesting. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% The ternary operator here is actually quite clear and concise - it's handling a simple binary choice of where to insert text based on line position. Breaking this into separate branches might actually make the code more verbose without adding clarity. The current structure with bounds checking followed by the insertion logic is reasonably clear. The comment does align with the general principle of preferring explicit control flow. The current nested structure (if followed by ternary) could be seen as slightly harder to follow. While explicit control flow is good, the current code is actually quite readable and the ternary operator is being used appropriately for a simple either/or condition. The suggestion would increase code complexity without clear benefit. The comment should be deleted as the current code structure is sufficiently clear and the suggested change would not significantly improve readability.
2. src/document_formatting_edit_provider/dbtDocumentFormattingEditProvider.ts:108
- Draft comment:
Removal of the chunk boundary logic simplifies the implementation. Please verify that diffs with multiple non-contiguous chunks are correctly handled by processing each change individually. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%The comment is asking the PR author to verify that a specific behavior is correctly handled, which violates the rule against asking for verification or confirmation of behavior. It does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear issue with the code.
3. src/document_formatting_edit_provider/dbtDocumentFormattingEditProvider.ts:126
- Draft comment:
The bound checks for normal and delete changes use '< document.lineCount' while the add changes allow '<=' for insertion at the document end. Confirm that these conditions are intentional and consistently reflect VS Code's indexing behavior. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:50%<= threshold50%None
Workflow ID: wflow_IKlV7R5Tmwd1BRoS
You can customize 
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixed an issue where the SQL formatter would corrupt SQL files with long lines by incorrectly moving column aliases to different positions.
fix for #1717
Changes:
The formatter now correctly preserves the structure of SQL files with long lines and maintains the association between columns and their aliases.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Overview
Problem
Describe the problem you are solving. Mention the ticket/issue if applicable.
Solution
Describe the implemented solution. Add external references if needed.
Screenshot/Demo
A picture is worth a thousand words. Please highlight the changes if applicable.
How to test
Checklist
README.mdupdated and added information about my changeImportant
Fixes SQL formatter corruption issue with long lines by simplifying diff processing and ensuring proper bounds checking in
dbtDocumentFormattingEditProvider.ts.TextEdit.replacefor normal changes instead of delete+insert pattern inprocessDiffOutput().processDiffOutput().processDiffOutput().processDiffOutput().processDiffOutput().This description was created by
for 59f2fbb. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.