CSharpier Version: 1.2.1
Input:
var x =
someValue.SomeCall().SomeProperty.SomeProperty
?? someValue.SomeCall().SomeProperty.SomeProperty;
var x =
someValue.SomeCall().SomeProperty?.SomeCall().SomeProperty
?? someValue.SomeCall().SomeProperty?.SomeCall().SomeProperty;
var x =
someValue.SomeCall().A_______.B_______.C_______
?? someValue.SomeCall().A_______.B_______.C_______;Output:
var x =
someValue.SomeCall().SomeProperty.SomeProperty ?? someValue
.SomeCall()
.SomeProperty.SomeProperty;
var x =
someValue.SomeCall().SomeProperty?.SomeCall().SomeProperty ?? someValue
.SomeCall()
.SomeProperty?.SomeCall()
.SomeProperty;
var x =
someValue.SomeCall().A_______.B_______.C_______ ?? someValue
.SomeCall()
.A_______.B_______.C_______;Expected behavior:
var x =
someValue.SomeCall().SomeProperty.SomeProperty
?? someValue.SomeCall().SomeProperty.SomeProperty;
var x =
someValue.SomeCall().SomeProperty?.SomeCall().SomeProperty
?? someValue.SomeCall().SomeProperty?.SomeCall().SomeProperty;
var x =
someValue.SomeCall().A_______.B_______.C_______
?? someValue.SomeCall().A_______.B_______.C_______;From #1681, some null coalescing operators no longer have their right-hand expression on its own line.
In the chain > 3 condition, the left-hand expression becomes a grouping target just by being slightly more complex.
I confirmed that the first and second examples above can be avoided by converting the condition to chain > 4, but I don't think that's a very good solution.
The reason why changes like #1681 were probably made is that, while addressing the pattern reported in #1573, they also had to handle existing formatting like the example below, and got stuck on how to define the left-hand side.
var coalesceIsSpecial =
CallSomething(
someLongValue__________________________________________,
someLongValue__________________________________________
) ?? someOtherValue;This pattern is tricky to handle, but while listing several plausible examples, I thought that "if the left-hand expression is an InvocationExpression and the MemberAccessExpression is built solely from property accesses, then group it" might work well.
var coalesceIsSpecial =
CallSomething(
someLongValue__________________________________________,
someLongValue__________________________________________
) ?? someOtherValue;
var x =
someValue
.Property.CallLongMethod_____________________________________()
.CallMethod(
someLongValue__________________________________________,
someLongValue__________________________________________
)
?? someOtherValue;
var x =
someValue.CallMethod(
someLongValue__________________________________________,
someLongValue__________________________________________
) ?? someOtherValue;
var x =
someValue
.Property.CallLongMethod_____________________________________()
.CallMethod__________()
?? throw new Exception();
var x =
someValue
.Property.CallLongMethod_____________________________________()
.CallMethod__________(someParameter)
?? throw new Exception();
var x =
someValue
.Property.CallLongMethod_____________________________________()
.CallLongMethod___________________________________________________()
?? throw new Exception();
CSharpier Version: 1.2.1
Input:
Output:
Expected behavior:
From #1681, some null coalescing operators no longer have their right-hand expression on its own line.
In the
chain > 3condition, the left-hand expression becomes a grouping target just by being slightly more complex.I confirmed that the first and second examples above can be avoided by converting the condition to
chain > 4, but I don't think that's a very good solution.The reason why changes like #1681 were probably made is that, while addressing the pattern reported in #1573, they also had to handle existing formatting like the example below, and got stuck on how to define the left-hand side.
This pattern is tricky to handle, but while listing several plausible examples, I thought that "if the left-hand expression is an
InvocationExpressionand theMemberAccessExpressionis built solely from property accesses, then group it" might work well.