Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Fixed JS completions type spread #45484

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 24, 2021
Merged

Fixed JS completions type spread #45484

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
33829fa
Fix and updated tests
armanio123 Aug 17, 2021
2249d6c
Added test
armanio123 Aug 17, 2021
e1a2b9e
Revert "Fix and updated tests"
armanio123 Aug 23, 2021
51881c4
Filter out empty access expression
armanio123 Aug 24, 2021
2253da6
PR feedback
armanio123 Aug 24, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 7 additions & 4 deletions src/services/completions.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1338,13 +1338,16 @@ namespace ts.Completions {
case SyntaxKind.PropertyAccessExpression:
propertyAccessToConvert = parent as PropertyAccessExpression;
node = propertyAccessToConvert.expression;
if ((isCallExpression(node) || isFunctionLike(node)) &&
node.end === contextToken.pos &&
node.getChildCount(sourceFile) &&
last(node.getChildren(sourceFile)).kind !== SyntaxKind.CloseParenToken) {
const leftmostAccessExpression = getLeftmostAccessExpression(propertyAccessToConvert);
if (nodeIsMissing(leftmostAccessExpression) ||
((isCallExpression(node) || isFunctionLike(node)) &&
node.end === contextToken.pos &&
node.getChildCount(sourceFile) &&
last(node.getChildren(sourceFile)).kind !== SyntaxKind.CloseParenToken)) {
Comment on lines +1343 to +1346
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I actually wonder if this whole second condition is even needed now... seems like the examples in the comments would be covered by the new condition you added. It doesn’t hurt to leave it in, so I probably wouldn’t change it this close to a release, but it might be worth running tests with it removed just to see if it can be cleaned up and simplified in the future.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I tried removing it as well and a couple of tests failed so I decided to leave it in place. Errors were related to writing syntax like

const foo = {
    bar: function (.| ) {}
}

// This is likely dot from incorrectly parsed expression and user is starting to write spread
// eg: Math.min(./**/)
// const x = function (./**/) {}
// ({./**/})
return undefined;
}
break;
Expand Down
12 changes: 12 additions & 0 deletions tests/cases/fourslash/getJavaScriptCompletions22.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
/// <reference path="fourslash.ts" />

// Regresion test for GH#45436

// @allowNonTsExtensions: true
// @Filename: file.js
//// const abc = {};
//// ({./*1*/});

goTo.marker('1');
edit.insert('.');
verify.completions({ exact: undefined });