[ptitjes]

This PR fixes the indentation of trailing lambda with chained calls.
See #589.

I used an AI agent to understand how ktfmt and google-java-format work. This PR has been implemented with the help of an AI agent. I don't know much about the PSI AST shapes, so I wouldn't be surprised if the AST tests and visits are not general enough, or simply wrong.

[meta-codesync]

@hick209 has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this in D108649008.

[hick209]

This said no internal changes here. Which is odd, I was expecting a bunch of them.
Tomorrow I'll do some extra validation of it, but just wanted to let you know this much already

[ptitjes]

@hick209 tell me if you need me to add more tests or fix something.

[hick209]

Oops, look at me not keeping my promises. Sorry about that, will look at it again right now!

[hick209]

Yes, this is incomplete as I suspected.

Here's the test I made, which I thought should happen the other way around

  @Test
  fun nivaldo_test() {
    // this passed
    assertFormatted(
        """
        |fun quux() {
        |  runnnnn {
        |        foo()
        |        bar()
        |      }
        |      .baz()
        |}
        |"""
            .trimMargin()
    )

    // this failed
    assertFormatted(
        """
        |fun quux() {
        |  runnnnn {
        |    foo()
        |    bar()
        |  }
        |      .baz()
        |}
        |"""
            .trimMargin()
    )
  }

Please LMK if I'm missing something here.

Also don't forget to update the CHANGELOG.md so I don't forget to give you proper attribution

[ptitjes]

Yes, this is incomplete as I suspected.

Hmmm, sorry, it seems I forgot half of the issue... I fixed it and added a bunch more tests.
Also fixed it to use the continuation indent for chained calls (and not the block indent as it was before).

Also don't forget to update the CHANGELOG.md so I don't forget to give you proper attribution

Done.

I applied the new formatting (1 change in KotlinInputAstVisitor.kt) in a separate commit, so that you can see the changes. Now I expect you will have more changes on your internal projects...

[hick209]

It still says no changes in our mega repo 🤔

Maybe we are missing something here. Let me test it out further to see if we are missing any use case

Edit: This might actually be a bug on our end here. I'm investigating
Edit 2: My script was too narrow and this pattern is not all that wide spread. That's why it was not caught. Seems like we are good now!

Thanks for the awesome work!

[cortinico]

Review automatically exported from Phabricator review in Meta.

[meta-codesync]

@hick209 merged this pull request in b8c9910.