Unnecessary blank line added about prettier-plugin-solidity

[pcaversaccio]

Imho the exception solution for solhint-enable comments should be enough. I can't think of another situation where such a behaviour should be enforced.

[Janther]

the comment is set as a trailing comment of the previous statement instead of a leading comment of the next statement.

This combined with the rule of a line of separation for functions creates this odd behaviour.

Will have a look into this one.

thanks for finding this @pcaversaccio

[Janther]

this is a big one, even if we remove the automatic line of separation, it would not fix this issue because the bug would still be there but would only appear if the user added a separation line themselves.
Prettier would keep that line and then it would trigger the same behaviour.

definitely will have to look into it more

[fvictorio]

Confirmed. Minimal reproduction:

contract Foo {
  /* foo */
  uint public x;
  /* bar */

  function f() public {}
}

Formatting this snippet moves the /* bar */ comment.

I think this is an artifact of Prettier Solidity being somewhat opinionated about blank lines between functions. In this case, what I think it's happening is that the /* bar */ comment is associated with the function and moved when a blank line is added between the variable x and the function f.

Two options here:

• Drop the auto-insertion of blank lines. Copy prettier's behavior: all blank lines are preserved, no new lines are added, and the only rule is that two or more blank lines are always collapsed to one blank line. One could argue this is a bit of a breaking change, since we are dropping a "feature".
• Fix the logic somehow, although I don't know how we would do that. Maybe we can add an exception for solhint-enable comments, since that's the only case where I think it makes sense to have the comments the way you have them.

[pcaversaccio]

the comment is set as a trailing comment of the previous statement instead of a leading comment of the next statement.

This combined with the rule of a line of separation for functions creates this odd behaviour.

Will have a look into this one.

thanks for finding this @pcaversaccio

@Janther a quick follow-up. Is there any fix for this in the meantime?