Param Default Values

[LittleBitQuacky]

Hi,

I have methods that have parameters with default values that don't get displayed correctly. Maybe I am doing something wrong.

 * @namespace Test
 * @desc A test
 */

class Test {

	/**
	 * @static
	 *
	 * @param {String} [str=""]
	 * @param {Boolean} [ret=false]
	 */

	static a(str = "", ret = false){

	}

	/**
	 * @static
	 *
	 * @param {String} [back=true] // Incorrect type here ignore this
	 */

	static b(back = true){

	}

	/**
	 * @static
	 */

	static c(){

	}

}

▾ a(str = "", ret = false)
    a(str: String?, ret: Boolean?)
    
    Parameters
          str (String? = "")
          ret (Boolean? = false)

Here is a screen shot of how it looks: http://i.imgur.com/nIkcz6b.png

[tmcw]

Hi,

Could you describe what the intended result is? Is the ? the issue here?

[LittleBitQuacky]

Hi,

I was expecting something more like the example on your website (http://documentation.js.org/html-example/#popup/sethtml), but maybe that is a different / older theme?

I suppose this mostly comes down to the theme. I modified the example HTML on your site to show how I would like it to be.

http://i.imgur.com/J8ueB3B.png

But yeah, the question marks would be the focus for this issue. Kinda makes it confusing, wasn't sure if it was something I was doing wrong, or intended behavior, as I've never used a tool to do documentation before.

Thanks

[arv]

We are using Flow's type syntax and the question mark is for types that can be null or undefined.

There is certainly room for improvements here. Having the question mark when we have the equals is not really right.

[tmcw]

Got it. Okay, yeah, so...

@param {number} [foo=5] bar

Produces

        {
            "title": "param",
            "description": "bar",
            "type": {
                "type": "OptionalType",
                "expression": {
                    "type": "NameExpression",
                    "name": "number"
                }
            },
            "name": "foo",
            "default": "5"
        }

But that isn't really what we want - what we want, both out of the doctrine tag and out of inference, is more like

        {
            "title": "param",
            "description": "bar",
            "type": {
                  "type": "NameExpression",
                  "name": "number"
            },
            "name": "foo",
            "default": "5"
        }

Right? I can start by implementing this on the inference side, and we could massage Doctrine output to produce this, and then it'd be an upstream change to doctrine.

[arv]

I'm torn about this. From a type annotation POV the type is just number but from a documentation POV the type is number | undefined since the casket can use either.