Hoist types in declarations or copy JSDoc comments to all copies of type

Suggestion

🔍 Search Terms

• jsdoc
• jsdoc zod
• jsdoc missing
• hoist types

✅ 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

I stumbled upon problem while using Zod with TypeScript: it loses important JSDoc and produces GIANT declarations for complex schemas when emitting declaration file. This is because TypeScript duplicates the type declarations in generic types, and generic parameters that have default values and could safely be omitted. Neither does it copy JSDocs to duplicated types.

I was thinking how this can be solved and came up with idea of ‘type’ hoisting: compiler can hoist types that will be re-used, under safe names. See motivating example for more details.

Alternative solution to just copy JSDoc descriptions, but this will make already giant declaration even bigger, cause in complex types TypeScript can duplicate same property 5-10 times.

📃 Motivating Example

In the attached playground I defined User and AuthenticatedUser schemas. User has only id property, and AuthenticatedUser has email and inherits id from User. All properties have simple JSDoc comments to explain the meanings.

Playground link

When working with the original code you can write type Test = AuthenticatedUser['email'], hover over ['email'] and see the JSDoc comment for email property. However, if you use the declaration, and try to do the same thing, TypeScript will no longer show anything but that email is a string (useful, but also not).

This means that if you are writing a node package with some Zod schemas, e.g. you have a monorepo and @org/api-schemas, you cannot store ANY JSDoc comments. This can be a huge deal. Let's try to solve that.

If you look closely into declaration, you can notice that TypeScript copied default parameters of ZodObject that can be safely be omitted, let's do that.

--- a.d.ts	2023-04-30 22:27:58.780166540 +0000
+++ b.d.ts	2023-04-30 22:28:08.536152930 +0000
@@ -1,34 +1,12 @@
 import { z } from "zod";
-declare const userSchema: z.ZodObject<
-  {
-    /** The id of the user */
-    id: z.ZodNumber;
-  },
-  "strip",
-  z.ZodTypeAny,
-  {
-    id: number;
-  },
-  {
-    id: number;
-  }
->;
+declare const userSchema: z.ZodObject<{
+  /** The id of the user */
+  id: z.ZodNumber;
+}>;
 type User = z.output<typeof userSchema>;
-declare const authenticatedUserSchema: z.ZodObject<
-  {
-    id: z.ZodNumber;
-    email: z.ZodString;
-  },
-  "strip",
-  z.ZodTypeAny,
-  {
-    id: number;
-    email: string;
-  },
-  {
-    id: number;
-    email: string;
-  }
->;
+declare const authenticatedUserSchema: z.ZodObject<{
+  id: z.ZodNumber;
+  email: z.ZodString;
+}>;
 type AuthenticatedUser = z.output<typeof authenticatedUserSchema>;
 export { userSchema, authenticatedUserSchema, User, AuthenticatedUser };

Now look let's see how authenticatedUserSchema type is formed.

Zod defines extend method as follows:

extend<Augmentation extends ZodRawShape>(augmentation: Augmentation): ZodObject<objectUtil.extendShape<T, Augmentation>, UnknownKeys, Catchall>;

and objectUntil.extendShape is already compressed by TypeScript to:

type objectUtil.extendShape<A, B> = { [k in keyof (Omit<A, keyof B> & B)]: (Omit<A, keyof B> & B)[k]; }

We can make the following assumptions traversing it down:

• T is the original object we pass to z.object in userSchema declaration
• Augmentation is the object we pass to extend
• UnknownKeys is in default value, can be omitted
• Catchall is in default value, can be omitted
• objectUtil.extendShape is simple and can be downcompiled (it is also exported, so if we keep track of exports, we can use it directly as z.objectUtil.extendShape, but in this example we assume we don't do that)
• Use of objectUtil.extendShape requires T and Augmentation (they need to be hoisted)

Let's hoist types to simple vars:

--- a.d.ts	2023-04-30 22:41:15.311786349 +0000
+++ b.d.ts	2023-04-30 22:41:18.679781850 +0000
@@ -1,9 +1,14 @@
 import { z } from "zod";
-declare const userSchema: z.ZodObject<{
+type _a = {
   /** The id of the user */
   id: z.ZodNumber;
-}>;
+};
+declare const userSchema: z.ZodObject<_a>;
 type User = z.output<typeof userSchema>;
+type _b = {
+  /** The email address of the authenticated user */
+  email: z.ZodString;
+};
 declare const authenticatedUserSchema: z.ZodObject<{
   id: z.ZodNumber;
   email: z.ZodString;

Now that both types are hoisted, we can compile use of objectUtil.extendShape:

--- a.d.ts	2023-04-30 22:43:07.891635955 +0000
+++ b.d.ts	2023-04-30 22:47:20.915298094 +0000
@@ -10,8 +10,7 @@
   email: z.ZodString;
 };
 declare const authenticatedUserSchema: z.ZodObject<{
-  id: z.ZodNumber;
-  email: z.ZodString;
+  [k in keyof (Omit<_a, keyof _b> & _b)]: (Omit<_a, keyof _b> & _b)[k];
 }>;
 type AuthenticatedUser = z.output<typeof authenticatedUserSchema>;
 export { userSchema, authenticatedUserSchema, User, AuthenticatedUser };

That's it.

import { z } from "zod";
type _a = {
  /** The id of the user */
  id: z.ZodNumber;
};
declare const userSchema: z.ZodObject<_a>;
type User = z.output<typeof userSchema>;
type _b = {
  /** The email address of the authenticated user */
  email: z.ZodString;
};
declare const authenticatedUserSchema: z.ZodObject<{
  [k in keyof (Omit<_a, keyof _b> & _b)]: (Omit<_a, keyof _b> & _b)[k];
}>;
type AuthenticatedUser = z.output<typeof authenticatedUserSchema>;
export { userSchema, authenticatedUserSchema, User, AuthenticatedUser };

And would you look at that, AuthenticatedUser["id"] now has description from JSDocs!

💻 Use Cases

What do you want to use this for?

Preserve JSDocs and make declarations a tiny bit smaller.

What shortcomings exist with current approaches?

More computation for TypeScript when reading types because defaults no longer provided (?). Or maybe type mismatch if say Zod in our example updates ZodObject type, but I feel like it will break in other way anyway.

What workarounds are you using in the meantime?

There is no workaround for that, as far as I am aware.

Well, you can define resulting types by Zod, for example, but then you're losing the beautiful feature of Zod which is type inference, also you put a huge effort into maintaining types. It's not worth it.

🎈 Additional context

• While Zod is prelevant here, this issue (request) is not related to Zod, it's just a good example.
• I originally wanted to report that as a bug, but realised this is probably a feature request.
• Real example of this issue: @vintl/nuxt original code vs emitted file dist/module.d.ts (viewable through Code tab on npm).

Parti dal TypeScript Playground collegato e confronta i tipi sorgente con gli esempi di dichiarazione emessi nell’issue. Traccia come l’output delle dichiarazioni duplichi i tipi generici e perda JSDoc, quindi definisci il completamento come la conservazione delle descrizioni delle proprietà riducendo al contempo la struttura dei tipi ripetuta inutilmente, senza modificare il comportamento a runtime.