New rule: Check param existence#138
Conversation
|
(As stated I need to work on this a bit more, but I figured I'd send a pull request to identify whether any other teams would benefit from this before investing the effort :-)) We've been using it for some time and it has proved handy. |
|
Thanks for contribution. Would be nice to have this in checker. ;-) 👍 from me |
|
Does checkParamExistence make sense as a rule name or is there a better name I should use? I will work to get this in mergeable form :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This could be another check like !node.jsdoc.valid. But I'm not sure we really need this check here since this rule for function scope ;-)
|
There is a huge conflicting rule |
|
Should I merge checkParamNames with checkParamExistence or is it better to have them separate? I can't think of a reason where you wouldn't want to check both.. |
|
Not sure. |
|
What is the reason of not supporting @inheritdoc in the jsdoc3 annotation type, when it's available in jsduck5 annotation type? |
|
Apologies this is taking me so long. I tried recently but am a bit rusty in this repository and couldn't get |
|
Personally I'll try to find some time next weekend to merge all PRs, but there is another strange issue with bundled to jscs version. I'm not sure how much time it takes. But if you have some troubles with |
2c597d7 to
ad80271
Compare
|
okay pushed. I wasn't able to see the issues with checkParamNames option but these rules might want to be merged in future. I've given you loads of test cases so hopefully that will give you confidence in my patch! It's good to be contributing again! :) |
ad80271 to
393ffc6
Compare
This rule reports errors when a parameter is undocumented or missing an @inheritdoc statement
Our upstream patch got merged: jscs-dev/jscs-jsdoc#138 Fix some issues with bad use of @return parameter Change-Id: Ifad8bcc99508490192efc4a1659c8c814fbdb3f3
This rule reports errors when a parameter is undocumented or missing
an @inheritdoc statement
If @inheritdoc is present it assumes that the function inherited from is documented correctly.
This seems useful for ensuring a developer has documented everything they should have in a function signature.
This patch is not quite mergeable - I need to write some tests but would you welcome a patch for this?