microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Intellisense: optional parameters are too verbose (bar? number | undefined)
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.3k
- Avg merge
- 2d 4h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 132
Description
Search Terms
optional parameters intellisense
Suggestion
The intellisense for optional parameters is too verbose:
an optional function parameter defined e.g. like this
function foo (bar?: number) {
}
gets resolved in the intellisense as
function foo(bar?: number | undefined): void
The optional nature of the bar parameter is indicated two times, once with number | undefined type and once with the question mark sign bar?:
Proposal:
Just use question mark in intellisense signatures
function foo(bar?: number): void
Use Cases
The | undefined bloats the length of the function signatures generated by the intellisense. This
makes the signatures too long leading to loss of important information in the intellisense in longer methods (e.g. the return types are shortened...)
Examples
Here is an example:
class IotFileClient {
public async GetFiles(
entityid: string,
params?: {
offset?: number;
limit?: number;
count?: boolean;
order?: string;
filter?: string;
}
): Promise<IotFileModels.IFile> {
return {name: "test"};
}
}
This produces the intellisense output like this:
(method) IotFileClient.GetFiles(entityid: string, params?: {
offset?: number | undefined;
limit?: number | undefined;
count?: boolean | undefined;
order?: string | undefined;
filter?: string | undefined;
} | undefined): Promise<...>
Using only ?: would reduce the verbosity and leave much more room for the important information e.g. for the return values:
(method) IotFileClient.GetFiles(entityid: string, params?: {
offset?: number;
limit?: number;
count?: boolean;
order?: string;
filter?: string;
}): Promise<IotFileModels.IFile>
Checklist
My suggestion meets these guidelines:
- This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
- This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
- This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
- This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, etc.)
- This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by tracing the TypeScript IntelliSense signature display for optional parameters and compare the issue's examples with current output. Done means optional parameters and properties no longer redundantly show | undefined where the question mark already conveys that information, while other signature details remain visible.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- typescript
- Domain
- compilers, developer-experience
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100