Allow extracting (deeply) nested calls in Python and Javascript#1127
Allow extracting (deeply) nested calls in Python and Javascript#1127dylankiss wants to merge 2 commits intopython-babel:masterfrom
Conversation
|
During the refactor, the order of extraction was also changed, as you can see in this test: It is now the same as the extraction order of e.g. # NOTE: Main Comment
_("Hello %s",
# NOTE: Nested Comment
_("Nested Gettext")
)Both terms would get their right comment extracted. |
|
Not saying this is not worth fixing, but out of curiosity, do nested gettext calls actually come up often? I don't think I've ever come across one.. |
|
@tomasr8 In our own codebase with lots of developers, people assume it works and it happens from time to time that they add in nested gettext calls. Even the deeply nested ones happen, like this example: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/149921/files#diff-e073b7fa9d45d46ba8d7f011257b0e77e1f87bf47982abc63dd618ff05dddb1aL267-L268 |
dylankiss
force-pushed
the
fix-python-extract-nested
branch
from
e6995c9 to
9131a83
Compare
dylankiss
changed the title
|
UPDATE: I added an extra commit to also allow nested calls in the Javascript extractor. If it's better to open a separate PR for that, no problem. |
dylankiss
force-pushed
the
fix-python-extract-nested
branch
from
9131a83 to
4df7e66
Compare
akx
left a comment
akx
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some initial comments within, including some that would make this easier to review for me 😄
babel/messages/extract.py
Outdated
| function_stack.append({ | ||
| 'function_line_no': line_no, | ||
| 'function_name': last_name, | ||
| 'message_line_no': None, | ||
| 'messages': [], | ||
| 'translator_comments': cur_translator_comments, | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think a typing.NamedTuple or a dataclass would be more appropriate than a dict for this state.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense. I changed it into a dataclass, since it's supposed to be mutable.
babel/messages/extract.py
Outdated
| # Keep track of the (split) strings encountered | ||
| message_buffer = [] | ||
|
|
||
| for token, value, (line_no, _), _, _ in tokens: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tiny thing, but could the local line_no be renamed back to lineno? It would make reviewing easier since the diff is smaller 😅
(Similarly, line_no elsewhere should maybe be lineno for consistency and compat.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're absolutely right. I was a bit too eager with the renaming here. I changed everything back to their original name.
babel/messages/extract.py
Outdated
| jsx=options.get('jsx', True), | ||
| template_string=options.get('template_string', True), |
tests/messages/test_extract.py
Outdated
| assert messages[0][2] == ('Hello, {name}!', None) | ||
| assert messages[0][2] == 'Foo Bar' | ||
| assert messages[0][3] == ['NOTE: First'] | ||
| assert messages[1][2] == 'Foo Bar' | ||
| assert messages[1][3] == [] | ||
| assert messages[2][2] == ('Hello, {name1} and {name2}!', None) | ||
| assert messages[1][2] == ('Hello, {name}!', None) | ||
| assert messages[1][3] == ['NOTE: First'] | ||
| assert messages[2][2] == 'Heungsub' | ||
| assert messages[2][3] == ['NOTE: Second'] | ||
| assert messages[3][2] == 'Heungsub' | ||
| assert messages[3][2] == 'Armin' | ||
| assert messages[3][3] == [] | ||
| assert messages[4][2] == 'Armin' | ||
| assert messages[4][3] == [] | ||
| assert messages[5][2] == ('Hello, {0} and {1}!', None) | ||
| assert messages[4][2] == ('Hello, {name1} and {name2}!', None, None) | ||
| assert messages[4][3] == ['NOTE: Second'] | ||
| assert messages[5][2] == 'Heungsub' | ||
| assert messages[5][3] == ['NOTE: Third'] | ||
| assert messages[6][2] == 'Heungsub' | ||
| assert messages[6][2] == 'Armin' | ||
| assert messages[6][3] == [] | ||
| assert messages[7][2] == 'Armin' | ||
| assert messages[7][3] == [] | ||
| assert messages[7][2] == ('Hello, {0} and {1}!', None, None) | ||
| assert messages[7][3] == ['NOTE: Third'] | ||
| assert messages[8][2] == 'Person' | ||
| assert messages[8][3] == ['NOTE: Fourth'] | ||
| assert messages[9][2] == ('Hello %(person)', None) | ||
| assert messages[9][3] == ['NOTE: Fourth'] | ||
| assert messages[10][2] == 'Person 1' | ||
| assert messages[10][3] == [] | ||
| assert messages[11][2] == 'Person 2' | ||
| assert messages[11][3] == [] | ||
| assert messages[12][2] == ('Hello %(people)', None) | ||
| assert messages[12][3] == ['NOTE: Fifth'] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this test be rewritten in a... less verbose way? Looks like it's only looking at indices 2 and 3 of each message, so maybe redo it as something like
assert [(m[2], m[3]) for m in messages] == [
(..., ...),
(..., ...),
(..., ...),
...
]?
I reckon it would be easy to generate the ... segment by doing assert [(m[2], m[3]) for m in messages] == 8 or similar and copy-pasting the complaint pytest -vv would inevitably throw :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Very good point. I changed it like that, and it looks a lot cleaner.
|
I'm not a big fan of the token-based extractor getting even more complex. I'm thinking we might be able to replace the python extractor with a |
|
So I did some investigation and an AST-based extractor cuts down the complexity quite a bit. However, it's about twice as slow compared to the current extractor. @akx Given the slowdown, is this something worth pursuing in your opinion? |
|
friendly ping @akx :) |
dylankiss
force-pushed
the
fix-python-extract-nested
branch
from
4df7e66 to
43fed4c
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1127 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.37% 91.46% +0.08%
==========================================
Files 27 27
Lines 4672 4673 +1
==========================================
+ Hits 4269 4274 +5
+ Misses 403 399 -4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Currently the Python extractor does not support deeply nested gettext
calls (deeper than as a direct argument to the top-level gettext call).
e.g.
```py
_("Hello %s", _("Person"))
_("Hello %s",
random_function(", ".join([_("Person 1"), _("Person 2")])))
```
The extraction code was refactored quite a bit to simplify the flow and
support this use-case.
Fixes python-babel#1125
(meanwhile also fixes python-babel#1123)
dylankiss
force-pushed
the
fix-python-extract-nested
branch
from
43fed4c to
54d6dd9
Compare
dylankiss
force-pushed
the
fix-python-extract-nested
branch
from
54d6dd9 to
dc6908f
Compare
Currently the Javascript extractor does not support nested gettext calls at all. The extraction code was refactored a bit to resemble the Python code as much as possible and support this use-case.
dylankiss
force-pushed
the
fix-python-extract-nested
branch
from
1942e74 to
50be29e
Compare
|
(since you said you missed the other ping.. 😆 ) @akx any opinions on this? FTR, I recently made the switch in CPython as well: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/main/Tools/i18n/pygettext.py#L421 |
3 participants
Currently the Python extractor does not support deeply nested gettext calls (deeper than as a direct argument to the top-level gettext call).
e.g.
The extraction code was refactored quite a bit to simplify the flow and support this use-case.
Currently the Javascript extractor does not support nested gettext calls at all.
The extraction code was refactored a bit to resemble the Python code as much as possible and support this use-case.
Fixes #1125 (meanwhile also fixes #1123)