blob: 8f202a292f9e6621cb841ea03af732a21c16f9d5 [file] [log] [blame]
// Copyright (c) 2015, the Dart project authors. Please see the AUTHORS file
// for details. All rights reserved. Use of this source code is governed by a
// BSD-style license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
library dart_style.src.line_splitting.solve_state;
import '../chunk.dart';
import '../debug.dart' as debug;
import '../nesting_level.dart';
import '../rule/rule.dart';
import '../whitespace.dart';
import 'line_splitter.dart';
import 'rule_set.dart';
/// A possibly incomplete solution in the line splitting search space.
/// A single [SolveState] binds some subset of the rules to values while
/// leaving the rest unbound. If every rule is bound, the solve state describes
/// a complete solution to the line splitting problem. Even if rules are
/// unbound, a state can also usually be used as a solution by treating all
/// unbound rules as unsplit. (The usually is because a state that constrains
/// an unbound rule to split can't be used with that rule unsplit.)
/// From a given solve state, we can explore the search tree to more refined
/// solve states by producing new ones that add more bound rules to the current
/// state.
class SolveState {
final LineSplitter _splitter;
final RuleSet _ruleValues;
/// The set of [Rule]s that are bound by [_ruleValues].
/// Cached by [_ensureConstraints] for use by [_ensureUnboundConstraints].
Set<Rule> _boundRules;
/// The set of [Rule]s that are not bound by [_ruleValues].
/// Cached by [_ensureConstraints] for use by [_ensureUnboundConstraints].
Set<Rule> _unboundRules;
/// The unbound rules in this state that can be bound to produce new more
/// refined states.
/// Keeping this set small is the key to make the entire line splitter
/// perform well. If we consider too many rules at each state, our
/// exploration of the solution space is too branchy and we waste time on
/// dead end solutions.
/// Here is the key insight. The line splitter treats any unbound rule as
/// being unsplit. This means refining a solution always means taking a rule
/// that is unsplit and making it split. That monotonically increases the
/// cost, but may help fit the solution inside the page.
/// We want to keep the cost low, so the only reason to consider making a
/// rule split is if it reduces an overflowing line. It's also the case that
/// splitting an earlier rule will often reshuffle the rest of the line.
/// Taking that into account, the only rules we consider binding to extend a
/// solve state are *unbound rules inside the first line that is overflowing*.
/// Even if a line has dozens of rules, this generally keeps the branching
/// down to a few. It also means rules inside lines that already fit are
/// never touched.
/// There is one other set of rules that go in here. Sometimes a bound rule
/// in the solve state constrains some other unbound rule to split. In that
/// case, we also consider that active so we know to not leave it at zero.
final _liveRules = <Rule>{};
/// The set of splits chosen for this state.
SplitSet get splits => _splits;
SplitSet _splits;
/// The number of characters that do not fit inside the page with this set of
/// splits.
int get overflowChars => _overflowChars;
int _overflowChars;
/// Whether we can treat this state as a complete solution by leaving its
/// unbound rules unsplit.
/// This is generally true but will be false if the state contains any
/// unbound rules that are constrained to not be zero by other bound rules.
/// This avoids picking a solution that leaves those rules at zero when they
/// aren't allowed to be.
bool _isComplete = true;
/// The constraints the bound rules in this state have on the remaining
/// unbound rules.
Map<Rule, int> _constraints;
/// The unbound rule values that are disallowed because they would place
/// invalid constraints on the currently bound values.
/// For example, say rule A is bound to 1 and B is unbound. If B has value
/// 1, it constrains A to be 1. Likewise, if B is 2, it constrains A to be
/// 2 as well. Since we already know A is 1, that means we know B cannot be
/// bound to value 2. This means B is more limited in this state than it
/// might be in another state that binds A to a different value.
/// It's important to track this, because we can't allow to states to overlap
/// if one permits more values for some unbound rule than the other does.
Map<Rule, Set<int>> _unboundConstraints;
/// The bound rules that appear inside lines also containing unbound rules.
/// By appearing in the same line, it means these bound rules may affect the
/// results of binding those unbound rules. This is used to tell if two
/// states may diverge by binding unbound rules or not.
Set<Rule> _boundRulesInUnboundLines;
SolveState(this._splitter, this._ruleValues) {
/// Gets the value to use for [rule], either the bound value or
/// [Rule.unsplit] if it isn't bound.
int getValue(Rule rule) => _ruleValues.getValue(rule);
/// Returns `true` if this state is a better solution to use as the final
/// result than [other].
bool isBetterThan(SolveState other) {
// If this state contains an unbound rule that we know can't be left
// unsplit, we can't pick this as a solution.
if (!_isComplete) return false;
// Anything is better than nothing.
if (other == null) return true;
// Prefer the solution that fits the most in the page.
if (overflowChars != other.overflowChars) {
return overflowChars < other.overflowChars;
// Otherwise, prefer the best cost.
return splits.cost < other.splits.cost;
/// Determines if this state "overlaps" [other].
/// Two states overlap if they currently have the same score and we can tell
/// for certain that they won't diverge as their unbound rules are bound. If
/// that's the case, then whichever state is better now (based on their
/// currently bound rule values) is the one that will always win, regardless
/// of how they get expanded.
/// In other words, their entire expanded solution trees also overlap. In
/// that case, there's no point in expanding both, so we can just pick the
/// winner now and discard the other.
/// For this to be true, we need to prove that binding an unbound rule won't
/// affect one state differently from the other. We have to show that they
/// are parallel.
/// Two things could cause this *not* to be the case.
/// 1. If one state's bound rules place different constraints on the unbound
/// rules than the other.
/// 2. If one state's different bound rules are in the same line as an
/// unbound rule. That affects the indentation and length of the line,
/// which affects the context where the unbound rule is being chosen.
/// If neither of these is the case, the states overlap. Returns `<0` if this
/// state is better, or `>0` if [other] wins. If the states do not overlap,
/// returns `0`.
int compareOverlap(SolveState other) {
if (!_isOverlapping(other)) return 0;
// They do overlap, so see which one wins.
for (var rule in _splitter.rules) {
var value = _ruleValues.getValue(rule);
var otherValue = other._ruleValues.getValue(rule);
if (value != otherValue) return value.compareTo(otherValue);
// The way SolveStates are expanded should guarantee that we never generate
// the exact same state twice. Getting here implies that that failed.
throw 'unreachable';
/// Enqueues more solve states to consider based on this one.
/// For each unbound rule in this state that occurred in the first long line,
/// enqueue solve states that bind that rule to each value it can have and
/// bind all previous rules to zero. (In other words, try all subsolutions
/// where that rule becomes the first new rule to split at.)
void expand() {
var unsplitRules = _ruleValues.clone();
// Walk down the rules looking for unbound ones to try.
var triedRules = 0;
for (var rule in _splitter.rules) {
if (_liveRules.contains(rule)) {
// We found one worth trying, so try all of its values.
for (var value = 1; value < rule.numValues; value++) {
var boundRules = unsplitRules.clone();
List<Rule> mustSplitRules;
var valid = boundRules.tryBind(_splitter.rules, rule, value, (rule) {
mustSplitRules ??= [];
// Make sure we don't violate the constraints of the bound rules.
if (!valid) continue;
var state = SolveState(_splitter, boundRules);
// If some unbound rules are constrained to split, remember that.
if (mustSplitRules != null) {
state._isComplete = false;
// Stop once we've tried all of the ones we can.
if (++triedRules == _liveRules.length) break;
// Fill in previous unbound rules with zero.
if (!_ruleValues.contains(rule)) {
// Pass a dummy callback because zero will never fail. (If it would
// have, that rule would already be bound to some other value.)
if (!unsplitRules.tryBind(_splitter.rules, rule, 0, (_) {})) {
/// Returns `true` if [other] overlaps this state.
bool _isOverlapping(SolveState other) {
// Lines that contain both bound and unbound rules must have the same
// bound values.
if (_boundRulesInUnboundLines.length !=
other._boundRulesInUnboundLines.length) {
return false;
for (var rule in _boundRulesInUnboundLines) {
if (!other._boundRulesInUnboundLines.contains(rule)) return false;
if (_ruleValues.getValue(rule) != other._ruleValues.getValue(rule)) {
return false;
if (_constraints.length != other._constraints.length) return false;
for (var rule in _constraints.keys) {
if (_constraints[rule] != other._constraints[rule]) return false;
if (_unboundConstraints.length != other._unboundConstraints.length) {
return false;
for (var rule in _unboundConstraints.keys) {
var disallowed = _unboundConstraints[rule];
var otherDisallowed = other._unboundConstraints[rule];
if (disallowed.length != otherDisallowed.length) return false;
for (var value in disallowed) {
if (!otherDisallowed.contains(value)) return false;
return true;
/// Calculates the [SplitSet] for this solve state, assuming any unbound
/// rules are set to zero.
void _calculateSplits() {
// Figure out which expression nesting levels got split and need to be
// assigned columns.
var usedNestingLevels = <NestingLevel>{};
for (var i = 0; i < _splitter.chunks.length - 1; i++) {
var chunk = _splitter.chunks[i];
if (chunk.rule.isSplit(getValue(chunk.rule), chunk)) {
for (var nesting in usedNestingLevels) {
_splits = SplitSet(_splitter.chunks.length);
for (var i = 0; i < _splitter.chunks.length - 1; i++) {
var chunk = _splitter.chunks[i];
if (chunk.rule.isSplit(getValue(chunk.rule), chunk)) {
var indent = 0;
if (!chunk.flushLeftAfter) {
// Add in the chunk's indent.
indent = _splitter.blockIndentation + chunk.indent;
// And any expression nesting.
indent += chunk.nesting.totalUsedIndent;
if (chunk.indentBlock(getValue)) indent += Indent.expression;
_splits.add(i, indent);
/// Evaluates the cost (i.e. the relative "badness") of splitting the line
/// into [lines] physical lines based on the current set of rules.
void _calculateCost() {
assert(_splits != null);
// Calculate the length of each line and apply the cost of any spans that
// get split.
var cost = 0;
_overflowChars = 0;
var length = _splitter.firstLineIndent;
// The unbound rules in use by the current line. This will be null after
// the first long line has completed.
var foundOverflowRules = false;
var start = 0;
void endLine(int end) {
// Track lines that went over the length. It is only rules contained in
// long lines that we may want to split.
if (length > _splitter.writer.pageWidth) {
_overflowChars += length - _splitter.writer.pageWidth;
// Only try rules that are in the first long line, since we know at
// least one of them *will* be split.
if (!foundOverflowRules) {
for (var i = start; i < end; i++) {
if (_addLiveRules(_splitter.chunks[i].rule)) {
foundOverflowRules = true;
start = end;
// The set of spans that contain chunks that ended up splitting. We store
// these in a set so a span's cost doesn't get double-counted if more than
// one split occurs in it.
var splitSpans = <Span>{};
// The nesting level of the chunk that ended the previous line.
var previousNesting;
for (var i = 0; i < _splitter.chunks.length; i++) {
var chunk = _splitter.chunks[i];
length += chunk.text.length;
// Ignore the split after the last chunk.
if (i == _splitter.chunks.length - 1) break;
if (_splits.shouldSplitAt(i)) {
// Include the cost of the nested block.
if (chunk.isBlock) {
cost +=
_splitter.writer.formatBlock(chunk, _splits.getColumn(i)).cost;
// Do not allow sequential lines to have the same indentation but for
// different reasons. In other words, don't allow different expressions
// to claim the same nesting level on subsequent lines.
// A contrived example would be:
// function(inner(
// argument), second(
// another);
// For the most part, we prevent this by the constraints on splits.
// For example, the above can't happen because the split before
// "argument", forces the split before "second".
// But there are a couple of squirrely cases where it's hard to prevent
// by construction. Instead, this outlaws it by penalizing it very
// heavily if it happens to get this far.
if (previousNesting != null &&
chunk.nesting.totalUsedIndent != 0 &&
chunk.nesting.totalUsedIndent == previousNesting.totalUsedIndent &&
!identical(chunk.nesting, previousNesting)) {
_overflowChars += 10000;
previousNesting = chunk.nesting;
// Start the new line.
length = _splits.getColumn(i);
} else {
if (chunk.spaceWhenUnsplit) length++;
// Include the nested block inline, if any.
length += chunk.unsplitBlockLength;
// Add the costs for the rules that have any splits.
_ruleValues.forEach(_splitter.rules, (rule, value) {
if (value != Rule.unsplit) cost += rule.cost;
// Add the costs for the spans containing splits.
for (var span in splitSpans) {
cost += span.cost;
// Finish the last line.
/// Adds [rule] and all of the rules it constrains to the set of [_liveRules].
/// Only does this if [rule] is a valid soft rule. Returns `true` if any new
/// live rules were added.
bool _addLiveRules(Rule rule) {
if (rule == null) return false;
var added = false;
for (var constrained in rule.allConstrainedRules) {
if (_ruleValues.contains(constrained)) continue;
added = true;
return added;
/// Lazily initializes the [_boundInUnboundLines], which is needed to compare
/// two states for overlap.
/// We do this lazily because the calculation is a bit slow, and is only
/// needed when we have two states with the same score.
void _ensureBoundRulesInUnboundLines() {
if (_boundRulesInUnboundLines != null) return;
_boundRulesInUnboundLines = <Rule>{};
var boundInLine = <Rule>{};
var hasUnbound = false;
for (var i = 0; i < _splitter.chunks.length - 1; i++) {
if (splits.shouldSplitAt(i)) {
if (hasUnbound) _boundRulesInUnboundLines.addAll(boundInLine);
hasUnbound = false;
var rule = _splitter.chunks[i].rule;
if (rule != null) {
if (_ruleValues.contains(rule)) {
} else {
hasUnbound = true;
if (hasUnbound) _boundRulesInUnboundLines.addAll(boundInLine);
/// Lazily initializes the [_constraints], which is needed to compare two
/// states for overlap.
/// We do this lazily because the calculation is a bit slow, and is only
/// needed when we have two states with the same score.
void _ensureConstraints() {
if (_constraints != null) return;
_unboundRules = <Rule>{};
_boundRules = <Rule>{};
for (var rule in _splitter.rules) {
if (_ruleValues.contains(rule)) {
} else {
_constraints = {};
for (var bound in _boundRules) {
for (var unbound in bound.constrainedRules) {
if (!_unboundRules.contains(unbound)) continue;
var value = _ruleValues.getValue(bound);
var constraint = bound.constrain(value, unbound);
if (constraint != null) {
_constraints[unbound] = constraint;
/// Lazily initializes the [_unboundConstraints], which is needed to compare
/// two states for overlap.
/// We do this lazily because the calculation is a bit slow, and is only
/// needed when we have two states with the same score.
void _ensureUnboundConstraints() {
if (_unboundConstraints != null) return;
// _ensureConstraints should be called first which initializes these.
assert(_boundRules != null);
assert(_unboundRules != null);
_unboundConstraints = {};
for (var unbound in _unboundRules) {
Set<int> disallowedValues;
for (var bound in unbound.constrainedRules) {
if (!_boundRules.contains(bound)) continue;
var boundValue = _ruleValues.getValue(bound);
for (var value = 0; value < unbound.numValues; value++) {
var constraint = unbound.constrain(value, bound);
// If the unbound rule doesn't place any constraint on this bound
// rule, we're fine.
if (constraint == null) continue;
// If the bound rule's value already meets the constraint it applies,
// we don't need to track it. This way, two states that have the
// same bound value, one of which has a satisfied constraint, are
// still allowed to overlap.
if (constraint == boundValue) continue;
if (constraint == Rule.mustSplit && boundValue != Rule.unsplit) {
if (disallowedValues == null) {
disallowedValues = <int>{};
_unboundConstraints[unbound] = disallowedValues;
String toString() {
var buffer = StringBuffer();
buffer.writeAll( {
var valueLength = '${rule.fullySplitValue}'.length;
var value = '?';
if (_ruleValues.contains(rule)) {
value = '${_ruleValues.getValue(rule)}';
value = value.padLeft(valueLength);
if (_liveRules.contains(rule)) {
value = debug.bold(value);
} else {
value = debug.gray(value);
return value;
}), ' ');
buffer.write(' \$${splits.cost}');
if (overflowChars > 0) buffer.write(' (${overflowChars} over)');
if (!_isComplete) buffer.write(' (incomplete)');
if (splits == null) buffer.write(' invalid');
return buffer.toString();