Fix leading spacing on property and function declaration expansion

[dafurman]

Context
Indentation and spacing was a little off in some Macro expansion, so I wanted to make it more readable.

Given the example protocol:

@Spyable
public protocol ServiceProtocol {
    var name: String {
        get
    }
    var secondName: String? {
        get
    }

    func initialize(name: String, secondName: String?)
}

This is the expansion in main:

class ServiceProtocolSpy: ServiceProtocol {
    var name: String {
        get {
            underlyingName
        }
        set {
            underlyingName = newValue
        }
    }
    var underlyingName: (String )! ⬅️❌
        var secondName: String? ⬅️❌
    var initializeNameSecondNameCallsCount = 0
    var initializeNameSecondNameCalled: Bool {
        return initializeNameSecondNameCallsCount > 0
    }
    var initializeNameSecondNameReceivedArguments: (name: String, secondName: String?)?
    var initializeNameSecondNameReceivedInvocations: [(name: String, secondName: String?)] = []
    var initializeNameSecondNameClosure: ((String, String?) -> Void)?

        func initialize(name: String, secondName: String?) { ⬅️❌
        initializeNameSecondNameCallsCount += 1
        initializeNameSecondNameReceivedArguments = (name, secondName)
        initializeNameSecondNameReceivedInvocations.append((name, secondName))
        initializeNameSecondNameClosure?(name, secondName)
    }
}

And this is the expansion in this PR:

class ServiceProtocolSpy: ServiceProtocol {
    var name: String {
        get {
            underlyingName
        }
        set {
            underlyingName = newValue
        }
    }
    var underlyingName: (String)! ⬅️✅
    var secondName: String? ⬅️✅
    var initializeNameSecondNameCallsCount = 0
    var initializeNameSecondNameCalled: Bool {
        return initializeNameSecondNameCallsCount > 0
    }
    var initializeNameSecondNameReceivedArguments: (name: String, secondName: String?)?
    var initializeNameSecondNameReceivedInvocations: [(name: String, secondName: String?)] = []
    var initializeNameSecondNameClosure: ((String, String?) -> Void)?

    func initialize(name: String, secondName: String?) { ⬅️✅
        initializeNameSecondNameCallsCount += 1
        initializeNameSecondNameReceivedArguments = (name, secondName)
        initializeNameSecondNameReceivedInvocations.append((name, secondName))
        initializeNameSecondNameClosure?(name, secondName)
    }
}

Testing
Existing tests pass, and the adjusted tests pass.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (bb042da) 96.43% compared to head (999e2f8) 96.52%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #49      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.43%   96.52%   +0.08%     
==========================================
  Files          16       16              
  Lines         646      662      +16     
==========================================
+ Hits          623      639      +16     
  Misses         23       23              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Matejkob]

Hello @dafurman, thank you once again for your valuable contribution! I'm currently refactoring the factories in our project to enhance the capabilities of SwiftSyntaxBuilder. I have some concerns about merging your changes prior to this refactor. Would it be alright if we hold off on merging for a bit?

[dafurman]

Hello @dafurman, thank you once again for your valuable contribution! I'm currently refactoring the factories in our project to enhance the capabilities of SwiftSyntaxBuilder. I have some concerns about merging your changes prior to this refactor. Would it be alright if we hold off on merging for a bit?

Yeah absolutely! No rush on this at all! I don't mind handling the git conflicts and reworking this if necessary after your refactor.

[Matejkob]

I've modified several files and simplified the implementation of some nodes, which has resulted in a few conflicts in this PR. Will you find time to resolve them? If not, I can attempt to address them in my free time.

[dafurman]

Will you find time to resolve them? If not, I can attempt to address them in my free time.

Sure! I can probably get to that later today or this weekend!

[dafurman]

@Matejkob The PR should be good to go for review now!

[Matejkob]

That is a great improvement! I was quite annoyed about these leading spaces... Great work! Thanks for doin' it! 🫶