GeezerVison is showing github.com — Declare property quick fix should add private properties (or be configurable) · Issue #36249 · microsoft/TypeScript
Declare property quick fix should add private properties (or be configurable) #36249Description
TypeScript Version: 3.8.0-beta
Search Terms:
- quick fix
- declare property
Code
For the code:
class Foo {
constructor() {
this._bar = 1;
}
}
new Foo().other = 'a';Trigger the quick fix to declare a missing property on _bar.
Expected behavior:
The quick fix adds a private property _bar:
class Foo {
private _bar: number;
constructor() {
this._bar = 1;
}
}Actual behavior:
The quick fix adds a standard public property:
class Foo {
_bar: number;
constructor() {
this._bar = 1;
}
}Playground Link:
Related Issues:
/cc Jackson Kearl (@JacksonKearl) Activitya-tarasyuk commented on Jan 28, 2020 Reacted by Daniel Rosenwasser DanielRosenwasser commented on Jan 28, 2020 Yeah, it sounds like the original quick fix is asking us to change the existing quick fix to add a private modifier to the property in TypeScript files, and maybe a /** @private */ doc comment in a JavaScript files?
What's preferable here? Reacted by Oleksandr Tarasiuk a-tarasyuk commented on Jan 29, 2020 Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser)
TypeScript
class Foo {
constructor() {
this._bar = 1; /* Declare property 'bar' */
}
}After QF
class Foo {
private _bar: number;
constructor() {
this._bar = 1;
}
}Is it a right example for TypeScript?
The following example is a valid JavaScript code
class Foo {
constructor() {
this._bar = 1;
}
}Where do we need to add /** @private */ JSDoc? Reacted by Daniel Rosenwasser DanielRosenwasser commented on Jan 29, 2020 Yeah, I guess the JS case doesn't need that... hmm.
But yes, I think the TS example you had is what what the quick fix should do. It's not clear whether it should be a separate action or not though. DanielRosenwasser commented on Jan 29, 2020 I'm inclined to experiment with keeping it as part of the same action and seeing if users are unhappy about it. DanielRosenwasser commented on Jan 29, 2020 But then I think there will be a question of "why don't you always make my properties private regardless of the _?" JacksonKearl commented on Jan 29, 2020 Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser) I personally don't tend to prefix privates with underscores, so I'd like it to be a separate action.
Of course if it's a separate action you'll soon have "why isn't there an action for protected if you allow private and public?". a-tarasyuk commented on Jan 31, 2020
Of course if it's a separate action you'll soon have "why isn't there an action for protected if you allow private and public?".
I think, better to make a new action for that case. We can start by adding new QF action for private declaration, and see if it makes sense to add QF action for protected properties. What do you think?
cc Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser) Jackson Kearl (@JacksonKearl) JacksonKearl commented on Jan 31, 2020 Adding just a separate QF for private seems fine for now.
MetadataMetadataDevelopmentNo branches or pull requestsIssue actions
|