microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Comment inference with type inference
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.3k
- Avg merge
- 2d 4h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 132
Description
Suggestion
🔍 Search Terms
Comment inference, documentation
✅ Viability 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, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
- This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.
⭐ Suggestion
Infer documentation/comments for inferred types.
📃 Motivating Example
I heavily use functions with dependency injection - this frequently means having a unit version of a function, as well as a convenience version with some of the arguments already applied.
For example, let's say I have a function:
/**
* Great documentation here!
*/
function cook(food: Food, spices: Spice[], pot: Pot, pan: Pan) {
// ...
}
I might have lots of functions like these, all of them may have different dependencies.
Somewhere in the top layers of my application, I'm going to bootstrap my function dependencies using functional applications:
function bootstrap(pot: Pot, pan: Pan) {
return {
cook: (food: Food, spices: Spice[]) => cook(food, spices, pot, pan),
cleanUp: () => cleanUp(pot, pans),
// ...and so on...
}
}
The problem here is, the documentation for the original function is lost.
I don't want to copy/paste all my documentation and maintain several copies. So I'm left with the choice of leaving the internal unit function undocumented, and explicitly writing out an interface for the bootstrap return-type, giving up the convenience of inference - or leaving the bootstrapped functions undocumented.
There aren't really good choices.
Could we have something like this maybe?
function bootstrap(pot: Pot, pan: Pan) {
return {
/** @inferdoc */
cook: (food: Food, spices: Spice[]) => cook(food, spices, pot, pan),
/** @inferdoc */
cleanUp: () => cleanUp(pot, pans),
}
}
This would follow the inferred type to it's type and infer (copy) the documentation from there.
We have something like this for classes with @inheritdoc, but nothing for functions.
💻 Use Cases
Everything. 😄
I don't know of any work-arounds - I would love to hear of any.
IDE support is crucial here. Not repeating documentation is important. Inference is important - I don't want repeated declarations. I'm already repeating the argument declarations, which isn't great, but I don't think there's any way around that? (It's possible the real issue here is that we need stronger inference for function types? Something that works better for very common patterns like functional applications? Might kill two birds with one stone.)
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 reviewing TypeScript's existing @inheritdoc behavior and design goals, then trace how inferred types and documentation are surfaced in IDE support. The issue names no files or tests, so identify the relevant compiler and editor paths before proposing an approach. Done would mean a supported way to infer documentation for functions without changing JavaScript runtime output.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- typescript
- Domain
- compilers, developer-experience
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100