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

Update JSDoc #13742

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 8, 2019
Merged

Update JSDoc #13742

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
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
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion packages/rich-text/src/concat.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ import { normaliseFormats } from './normalise-formats';
* Combine all Rich Text values into one. This is similar to
* `String.prototype.concat`.
*
* @param {...[object]} values An array of all values to combine.
* @param {...Object} values Objects to combine.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought I'd seen the removed syntax around... The one you're suggesting seems correct but it's a bit weird to me. values is an array, not an object?

Copy link
Member Author

@oandregal oandregal Feb 7, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm working on generating documentation (markdown, html) from the JSDoc comments and this one didn't pass my tests. I didn't find this way of param type declaration in the standard.

I thought it took objects as input? As in concat( object1, object2, object3 );. That is what is implied in the tests. concat converts that input into an array, though:

export function concat( ...values ) { }

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes as proposed seem correct to me. If it receives variadic arguments, it should be a ... prefix on the type expected.

From your link, see under "Variable number of that type". The main difference is ES2015+ adds syntax support for the spread argument.

Related:

*
* @return {Object} A new value combining all given records.
*/
Expand Down