Fix double indentation in Elvis chains

[nreid260]

This is consistent with other binary operators, and prevents a strange second indent in Elvis chains.

[nreid260]

@cgrushko

I feel this might be a contentious change. What I'm mostly hoping to fix is this output:

----------------------------------------
      foo =
        option1()
          ?: option2() ?: option3()
            ?: option4() ?: option5()
            ?: error()

It's possible to put Elvis at the start of the line, but it doesn't mix well with other operators.

[hick209]

What were your expectations for that particular use case there?

Something like this maybe?

----------------------------------------
      foo =
        option1()
          ?: option2() ?: option3()
          ?: option4() ?: option5()
          ?: error()

[nreid260]

That proposed formatting is also acceptable to me. Although UNIFIED breaks might be preferable since the operators all have the same precedence:

---------------------------------------------------
      foo =
        option1()
          ?: option2()
          ?: option3()
          ?: option4()
          ?: option5()
          ?: error()

The approach in this PR was selected to in part because it made ?: consistent with with how other binary operator handled, which also makes future bugs less likely.

[nreid260]

@hick209 @cgrushko @davidtorosyan Is there a strong opinion here? I'd like to move forward in some direction

[nreid260]

I took another look and it was surprisingly easy to get the intended left-alignment. Hopefully that moves this from a decision to a bug fix.

[facebook-github-bot]

@hick209 has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator.

[hick209]

No strong opinions from my end other than "this looks like a nice improvement to me"

[nreid260]

Great. I believe the latest version is uncontroversial as well.

[facebook-github-bot]

@hick209 merged this pull request in ccc2b74.