LuaLS / LuaLS/lua-language-server

Ability to mark default constructor names for resolving return type

Open
#2,331 0 comments 2 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Dominant language
Lua
Stars
4.4k
Forks
442
PR merge metrics
No merged PRs in 30d

Description

Hi!

A request to infer return value for default returns when calling a defined constructor function. EmmyLua supports this using a setting:
![image](https://github.com/LuaLS/lua-language-server/assets/4696942/662ffc29-e3ab-40e2-8592-4ff8d546a5ce)

Here it can infer that calling e.g. `:new()` on items marked with the `---@class` annotation will be returning an instance of that class.

This is especially useful when constructing classes using metatables in a generic class system, adding interfaces or inheritance functionality but still be able to denote the return type of calling the constructor method.

Example:

```
#class.lua

local definitions = {}

local Class = {}
function Class.class(name)
local definitions = {}

local def = definitions[name]
if not def then
def = {}
def.__class_name = class_name

def.new = function(self, ...)
local instance = {}

if instance.construct then
instance:construct(...)
end

return instance
end

setmetatable(instance, def)

def[class_name] = def
end

return class_definition
end
```

Example of using the class creation method
```
#my_class.lua

local Class = require "path/class"

local MyClass = Class("MyClass")
function MyClass:construct()
self._member = 0
end
```

Example of instantiating an instance of the class and showing the issue:
```
#example.lua

local MyClass = require "path/my_class"
local instance = MyClass:new() -- this line cannot find the function new() or deduce the return/type of "instance"
```

Here the instance of class return value from the `new()` function cannot be inferred and I haven't found a way to annotate this using luadocs with generics, alias, overload or other methods. This issue is somewhat related to #449 but I feel this warrants a retake on the proposed solution unless I am missing something?

A different way could be to allow explicit descriptors of the `@field` annotation to specify return value types in class definitions e.g.

![image](https://github.com/LuaLS/lua-language-server/assets/4696942/093f448d-18f3-472c-a275-a69be639593b)

The return values of functions defined in fields from a set metatable cannot have it's return type defined however it seems.

![image](https://github.com/LuaLS/lua-language-server/assets/4696942/688f56f3-1700-474f-86da-a889f2055446)

![image](https://github.com/LuaLS/lua-language-server/assets/4696942/4f94b87c-bacc-429f-b588-e9730515beca)

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start with the class.lua and example.lua scenarios in the issue, focusing on how the `---@class` annotation and `new()` call are resolved. Review the related discussion in issue #449 and the described `@field` alternative before choosing an approach. Done should include inferred constructor availability and the correct instance return type for the example.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
lua
Domain
devtools
Issue type
Feature
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
35/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.