You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I tried setting up a JS analyzer in my VsCode config to see if any bug can be easily identified in the source code. And I tried experimenting with jsconfig.json.
{
"compilerOptions": {
"checkJs": true,
"lib": [] // Do not include dom ('Node' namespace conflict)
},
"include": [
"src/**/*",
"examples/**/*"
]
}
This is just a little experiment but I find out two points in which this type of config might be usefull:
It allows to elevate types from the JSdoc and see incoherences in the used types, ex:
// src\nodes\code\ScriptableNode.js::453
// type of getOutput should be a ScriptableValueNode
It allows to detect missing/broken call to functions, ex:
// src\nodes\code\ScriptableNode.js::483
There is a lot of false positives or missing type references but I might be handy to look at it from time to time to detect types inconsistency and possible errors.
Solution
Use this config at the end of a documentation or development cycle to analyze possible errors.
Alternatives
Stay with the current config with less visibility on the structure of types but a faster way to document and implement things without taking to much attention to possible errors.
Additional context
Just wanted to share in case it might help the core team :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Stay with the current config with less visibility on the structure of types but a faster way to document and implement things without taking to much attention to possible errors.
I would favor this approach at least for the moment. It's important to get the documentation up and running and then think about a customized template. When this is all done, we can think about utilizing the type informations for code analysis.
Description
I tried setting up a JS analyzer in my VsCode config to see if any bug can be easily identified in the source code. And I tried experimenting with
jsconfig.json
.This is just a little experiment but I find out two points in which this type of config might be usefull:
// src\nodes\code\ScriptableNode.js::453
// type of getOutput should be a ScriptableValueNode
// src\nodes\code\ScriptableNode.js::483
There is a lot of false positives or missing type references but I might be handy to look at it from time to time to detect types inconsistency and possible errors.
Solution
Use this config at the end of a documentation or development cycle to analyze possible errors.
Alternatives
Stay with the current config with less visibility on the structure of types but a faster way to document and implement things without taking to much attention to possible errors.
Additional context
Just wanted to share in case it might help the core team :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: