microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript

Comment inference with type inference

オープン
#43,847 コメント 1 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

まだ誰も着手していません。

Awaiting More Feedback Suggestion
主要言語
Go
スター
111k
フォーク
14.3k
平均マージ
1日 19時間
マージ済み PR(30日)
117

説明

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.)

コントリビューションガイド

コントリビューションガイドを開く

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

調査の方向性

まず TypeScript の既存の @inheritdoc の動作と設計目標を確認し、次に推論された型とドキュメントが IDE サポートでどのように提示されるかを追跡してください。この issue にはファイルやテストの指定がないため、アプローチを提案する前に、関連するコンパイラーとエディターの経路を特定してください。JavaScript のランタイム出力を変更せずに関数のドキュメントを推論できる、サポートされた方法が存在すれば完了です。

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

評価

技術スタック
typescript
領域
compilers, developer-experience
issue の種類
機能追加
難易度
5/5
見積もり時間
1週間以上
活発さ
停滞
明瞭さ
おおむね明確
初心者へのやさしさ
30/100

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。