add support for nonnull jsdoc #36219
Conversation
| @@ -21712,7 +21712,8 @@ namespace ts { | |||
| case SyntaxKind.ParenthesizedExpression: { | |||
| // Like in `checkParenthesizedExpression`, an `/** @type {xyz} */` comment before a parenthesized expression acts as a type cast. | |||
| const tag = isInJSFile(parent) ? getJSDocTypeTag(parent) : undefined; | |||
| return tag ? getTypeFromTypeNode(tag.typeExpression.type) : getContextualType(<ParenthesizedExpression>parent, contextFlags); | |||
| const type = tag ? getTypeFromTypeNode(tag.typeExpression.type) : getContextualType(<ParenthesizedExpression>parent, contextFlags); | |||
| return type && getJSDocNonNullTag(node) ? getNonNullableType(type) : type; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
getJSDocNonNullTag should be limited to JS files
| } | ||
| return checkExpression(node.expression, checkMode); | ||
| const type = tag ? checkAssertionWorker(tag, tag.typeExpression.type, node.expression, checkMode) : checkExpression(node.expression, checkMode); | ||
| return getJSDocNonNullTag(node) ? getNonNullableType(type) : type; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
getJSDocNonNullTag should be limited to JS files
| @@ -483,6 +483,7 @@ namespace ts { | |||
| JSDocTemplateTag, | |||
| JSDocTypedefTag, | |||
| JSDocPropertyTag, | |||
| JSDocNonNullTag, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LastJSDocNode and LastJSDocTagNode need to be adjusted
| @@ -1622,6 +1626,10 @@ namespace ts { | |||
| return node.kind === SyntaxKind.JSDocTypeTag; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| export function jsJSDocNonNullTag(node: Node): node is JSDocNonNullTag { | |||
| @@ -32376,7 +32375,7 @@ namespace ts { | |||
| if (getModifierFlags(member) & ModifierFlags.Ambient) { | |||
| continue; | |||
| } | |||
| if (isInstancePropertyWithoutInitializer(member)) { | |||
| if (isInstancePropertyWithoutInitializer(member) && !isNonNullPropertyWithJSDoc(member)) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this the equivalent of a "definite assignment assertion" on properties?
If so, does this need to be expanded to variables as well?
|
The way this works is kind of unfortunate because I don't think you can mix/match these with optional chaining the way we're changing in TypeScript 3.8. (@rbuckton) So you can't easily convert to strictNullChecks by switching a?.b.cto (/** @nonnull */ (a?.b)).c |
|
We could instead look for it in the trailing comments of a node: a?.b/** @nonnull */.c |
|
@DanielRosenwasser why would you ever want to use a nonnull assertion in an optional chain? There's another issue discussing whether to make that an error. |
|
@ajaff if you have |
|
@DanielRosenwasser so you mean "Optional Chaining with Non-Null Assertions" that was discussed in #36138? Now I understand what you mean.
AFAICT that would require parsing JSDoc for every expression. In addition this requires the JSDoc parser to use the trailing comments (and store them in a separate place). |
Fixes #23405
Fixes #23217