microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Comment inference with type inference
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
- Lenguaje dominante
- Go
- Estrellas
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.3k
- Merge medio
- 1 d 19 h
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 117
Descripción
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.)
Guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Línea de trabajo
Comienza revisando el comportamiento existente de @inheritdoc y los objetivos de diseño de TypeScript; después, sigue cómo se exponen los tipos inferidos y la documentación en la compatibilidad con IDE. El issue no menciona archivos ni pruebas, así que identifica las rutas relevantes del compilador y del editor antes de proponer un enfoque. Se considerará terminado cuando exista una forma compatible de inferir documentación para funciones sin cambiar la salida en tiempo de ejecución de JavaScript.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Evaluación
- Stack tecnológico
- typescript
- Área
- compilers, developer-experience
- Tipo de issue
- Nueva funcionalidad
- Dificultad
- 5/5
- Tiempo estimado
- Más de una semana
- Estado de actividad
- Estancado
- Claridad
- Bastante claro
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 30/100