Formatting fails with assertMatch containing with.

[7run]

When trying to format by efmt in a module that describes a unit test,
The formatting fails if the evaluation expression for ?assertMatch contains a guard.

Successful patterns

-module(test).

-include_lib("eunit/include/eunit.hrl").


match_test() ->
    ?assertMatch(<<_/binary>>, <<"hello">>).

rebar3 efmt -w test/test.erl
[2024-07-16T07:37:38Z INFO  efmt] Overwrote "test/test.erl"
[2024-07-16T07:37:38Z INFO  efmt] All files were formatted correctly!

Failure patterns

-module(test).

-include_lib("eunit/include/eunit.hrl").


match_test() ->
    ?assertMatch(Bin when is_binary(Bin), <<"hello">>).

rebar3 efmt -w test/test.erl
[2024-07-16T07:38:37Z ERROR efmt] Failed to format "test/test.erl"
    Parse failed:
    --> test/test.erl:8:18
    8 | ?assertMatch(Bin when is_binary(Bin), <<"hello">>).
      |                  ^ unexpected token

[sile]

Thank you for reporting this issue. However this is an expected behavior.
Because #73 has dropped the -include handling (mainly, as it's a bit error prune and to reduce maintenance costs), the current version of efmt assumes that each argument of unknown macros (that are not defined in the same file) is a well-formed expression.

There is a workaround by adding dummy macro definition in the same file as follows:

-module(test).

-include_lib("eunit/include/eunit.hrl").

-ifdef(DUMMY_MACRO_FOR_EFMT).
-define(assertMatch(Pattern, Value), ok).
-endif.


match_test() ->
    ?assertMatch(Bin when is_binary(Bin), <<"hello">>).

However, I think there is room for improvement in handling unknown macros.
I will consider and try possible approaches in the near future.

[7run]

Thank you for your answer 😄

The workaround you gave us solved the problem.

[sile]

[FYI] Special handling for ?assertMatch() and ?assertNotMatch() has been added in #100, making the above workaround unnecessary.