Fix extract type on JS function params #34745
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Kingwl
approved these changes
Oct 27, 2019
sandersn
approved these changes
Oct 28, 2019
|
|
||
| // @allowJs: true | ||
| // @Filename: a.js | ||
| ////function a(/** @type {/*a*/string/*b*/} */ b) {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is my favourite place to write jsdoc
|
@typescript-bot cherry-pick this to release-3.7 |
|
Hey @andrewbranch, I've opened #34766 for you. |
typescript-bot
pushed a commit
to typescript-bot/TypeScript
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2019
Component commits: 07a371b Fix extract type on JS function params
andrewbranch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2019
Component commits: 07a371b Fix extract type on JS function params
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #34580
When the JSDoc is on the function param itself, the JSDoc container isn’t a statement. As far as I could tell, though, there’s no reason those nodes have to be the same. Maybe @Kingwl can think of a test case where this would fail?