fix(64058): fix reparse jsdoc @extends type arguments for call expressions - #64072
fix(64058): fix reparse jsdoc @extends type arguments for call expressions#64072Oleksandr Tarasiuk (a-tarasyuk) wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Fixes JSDoc @extends type arguments for call-expression heritage clauses.
Changes:
- Copies JSDoc type arguments onto the parsed heritage node.
- Adds parser and compiler regression coverage.
- Removes the previous property-access matching helper.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
tsc/internal/parser/reparser.go |
Reparses @extends type arguments. |
tsc/internal/ast/utilities.go |
Removes the old name-matching helper. |
tsc/internal/parser/parser_test.go |
Tests reparsed AST linkage. |
tsc/testdata/tests/cases/conformance/jsdoc/extendsTag7.ts |
Adds the compiler regression case. |
tsc/testdata/baselines/reference/conformance/extendsTag7.types |
Records inferred types. |
tsc/testdata/baselines/reference/conformance/extendsTag7.symbols |
Records resolved symbols. |
💡 Add a code-review agent skill for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
| } | ||
| target.TypeArguments = p.newNodeList(source.TypeArguments.Loc, newArguments) | ||
| p.finishMutatedNode(target.AsNode()) | ||
| if target.TypeArguments == nil && source.TypeArguments != nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this problem has now been restored; does it need to still check that the call target is the right name?
(I haven't double checked Strada behavior here)
f199fb7 to
459b499
Compare
| func HasSamePropertyAccessName(target, source *Node) bool { | ||
| target = SkipParentheses(target) | ||
| source = SkipParentheses(source) | ||
| if IsCallExpression(target) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is kind of a heuristic, since you could write something as goofy as Foo<string> and have extends Foo.Bar() and then it'd parameterize Foo?
Not sure how I feel about it. I actually didn't know the original code was so syntactic...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe the actual fix needs to be in the reparser more specifically?
Fixes #64058