GeezerVison is showing github.com — Enable Go to Implementation in Typescript Editors · Issue #6209 · microsoft/TypeScript
Enable Go to Implementation in Typescript Editors #6209DescriptionCould you provide a way for Typescript Editors to list the implementations of a type?
This would definitely help developer productivity to be able to find implementations of types faster.
For example, in the Atom Editor atom-typescript plugin you can press F12 to 'Go to Declaration' which as currently implemented you often arrive at the typescript .d.ts file which has the function signature but not the actual implementation.
Since the Typescript parser often generates the d.ts files from the .ts implementation files. Could that association between the d.ts and .ts files be preserved (perhaps output with a typescript compiler option) so that Typescript editors could take developers to a list of the implementing classes or functions?
I opened a similar request for the Atom-typescript editor, but they indicate that they cannot implement this without Typescript parser support:
TypeStrong/atom-typescript#790 Reacted by Ben Creasy, Alexandru Ciucă, mazamachi, David Daniel, Bruno Jouhier, efokschaner, doomleika, Yuya Tanaka, Yuval Greenfield, Nikolaos Tsokos and 387 more Reacted by Ivan Ilinykh, phatmann, Ray Lee, Peter Ruibal, James Francis, Stephen Brown-Bourne, Scott Tolinski, Sathish, Thomas Pischulski, Luke O'Malley and 40 more Reacted by Maximilian Beck, Manuel Figueroa, It's me, Ivan Ilinykh, hash, phatmann, Ray Lee, Brian Nelson, James Francis, Stephen Brown-Bourne and 29 more Reacted by Denis, Stephen Brown-Bourne, Scott Tolinski, Thomas Pischulski, Jacob M-G Evans, Zach Brogan, Carlos Pérez Gutiérrez, Wendell Misiedjan, IBRAGIM (PARVIZ BEKLIEV), disfated and 21 more ActivityDanielRosenwasser commented on Dec 22, 2015 So you want this functionality to jump to the corresponding .js if available, provided that the definition is ambient, correct? Reacted by Morten Christensen, Nikolaos Tsokos, Bruno Lemos, Viral Shah, Oleg Bilyk, mrbone, Sam Richards, Remco Haszing, Aneil Mallavarapu, Dusan Kovacevic and 70 more DanielRosenwasser commented on Dec 22, 2015 doliver3 commented on Dec 23, 2015
So you want this functionality to jump to the corresponding .js if available, provided that the definition is ambient, correct?
Yes this is a scenario that would be very useful for productivity. This alone would be very valuable. I believe the atom-typescript author believes more hooks in the Typescript compiler would make it easier for him to implement this. I'm unclear on whether this is information on js implementation line numbers is information the typescript compiler would typically know internally.
In addition, another scenario would be enabling a jump to the original typescript .ts file definition in the library being used by the application. I would imagine this information is available pre-compile to d.ts and .js files. We now have entire sets of libraries being written in .ts files as source outputting ES5 syntax js. It would be nice to achieve the ability to jump to the original typescript implementation definition in the .ts files.
I'm aware this is asking even more to jump to the .ts file implementation in the required library as it might need source map usage or distribution of source/link to original ts source. It would seem to me that the typescript compiler that generates the initial library of functions and classes would know the lines where the implementation is at and could preserve the line numbers when the library is distributed somehow so that the typscript compiler of the application using the class could know what line to jump to in the library.
Is this information on line number of implementing function/class available in source maps? Are there other sources of this information? Reacted by Alex Landau, Yuval Greenfield, Eric Anderson, David Edey, youssefabidi, Jannik Buschke, Andrey, fisherpro, Pavel Horal, Warren Falk and 18 more DanielRosenwasser commented on Dec 23, 2015 Given that we are going to be using the --allowJS flag, the language service should be able to work with the JS files.
I don't know how .d.ts files and .js files currently work together in that respect. Sheetal Nandi (@sheetalkamat) probably (definitely) knows more about this than I do. riknoll commented on Sep 15, 2016 Reopening, because going to js files isn't supported quite yet Reacted by IBRAGIM (PARVIZ BEKLIEV), disfated, David Peherstorfer, paul-b, evans, gukandrew, Lauro Araujo (Myplanet), joseph-of-wheel, Diego Camacho, major-mann and 5 more andrewbranch commented on Jan 21, 2022 Daniel Iser (@danieliser) totally agree—however, if we get a solution to this at all, it’s likely to be a “best guess” effort to find the corresponding JS from the typings. I’m ok with providing a go-to function for that because it’s better than nothing, but I don’t think we’ll achieve high enough confidence (or satisfactory performance) in that guess in order to pull in the JSDoc. This seems like a case where the answer is just to get the package authors to copy the JSDoc comments to the typings (or copy it in a DT PR). If the typings are generated from TS source, the comments will be copied to the typings automatically. If they’re missing, it means someone’s manual process or third-party tooling is insufficient and the problem should be addressed there. andrewbranch commented on Jan 21, 2022 Please note the milestone change means I plan to investigate solutions to this during the 4.7 timeframe. I don’t think we have a clear path yet, so it doesn’t necessarily mean that something will ship in 4.7. Reacted by Anton Bessonov, Remco Haszing, Scott de Jong, Guy Carmeli, Jérôme, Aliaksei Kislou, Jonathan Rico, Bal Krishna Jha and urielvan mhofman commented on Jan 28, 2022 I'd like to add a use case: some of our files are authored as .js files (with JSDoc style typing) with explicit/manual .d.ts files for them to express things that cannot be expressed otherwise in JSDoc (e.g. circular type definitions, function overloads, interface, etc.)
The problem is that with such files, it's impossible to "go to definition" / "go to implementation" as VS Code and other editors stop at the .d.ts file. declarationMap isn't an option since the .d.ts file is manually authored. Reacted by Andrew Branch, Malcolm, Micah Engle-Eshleman, Turadg Aleahmad and Ell Bradshaw andrewbranch commented on Mar 15, 2022 I have a prototype up at #48264 that I’m welcoming feedback on. I’m 100% sure it doesn’t cover everything but if folks are willing to give it a try, it would be helpful to gather some test cases that don’t work yet so I can see if there’s a good way forward on them.
To try it: There’s a build from TypeScript Bot (@typescript-bot) on the PR (copied below) that you can npm install, then ensure your VS Code window is using that build of TypeScript by opening the command palette (in a TS or JS file) and running TypeScript: Select TypeScript Version. You should see the one newly in your node_modules listed as version 4.7.0. At that point, your Go To Definition command will be replaced with the new logic that finds more JS files and ignores .d.ts files. 🚨 This is not the final experience! We are not replacing Go To Definition like this! We don’t know for sure yet where the new logic will be exposed: it might be in a new command, or its results might be merged into Go To Definition or Go To Implementation. There are technical and UX reasons why the latter might not be desirable, but if it’s in a new command, none of you would be able to test it right now without also running a custom build of VS Code. So this build temporarily replaces the existing go-to-def implementation with the new command so you can easily test it.
One specific thing to keep an eye out for in testing: There are some cases where we are quite confident in the results we return, other cases where the best we can do is jumping to the top of a file, and then other cases where we’re confident about the file but we make a number of guesses within the file. Under the hood, I am indicating whether or not the result is a guess, but this information isn’t currently exposed in VS Code. If we go forward with presenting guesses like this, it will almost certainly go along with some kind of visual indicator noting that it’s a guess. Here’s an example on import { add } from "lodash":
Two of these guesses are right, while the top one is wrong. If you notice more places containing wrong guesses like this, please note that and tell me how to repro them on the PR. I need a bit of crowdsourcing to determine whether the guesses are worth doing at all and if there’s an easy way to improve them.
Thanks all!
Hey Andrew Branch (@andrewbranch), I've packed this into an installable tgz. You can install it for testing by referencing it in your package.json like so:
{
"devDependencies": {
"typescript": "https://typescript.visualstudio.com/cf7ac146-d525-443c-b23c-0d58337efebc/_apis/build/builds/122072/artifacts?artifactName=tgz&fileId=F1B646030001FF6586C865D86A3B212F194CAFCD7C9C74E8E24C4BEC6A44B7E502&fileName=/typescript-4.7.0-insiders.20220316.tgz"
}
}
and then running npm install.
Reacted by Philip Waritschlager, Toni Villena, Guy Carmeli, David Luzar, Giora Guttsait, DaviDevMod and Alexei Reacted by Valentin Hăloiu, Toni Villena, Guy Carmeli, Giora Guttsait and DaviDevMod Reacted by Teje Sczeponek, christophe geiser, Valentin Hăloiu, Philip Waritschlager, Toni Villena, Guy Carmeli, David Luzar, Pob, electron-space, Logan Houp and 3 more Reacted by Guy Carmeli, Alexander Genin, Turadg Aleahmad, Giora Guttsait, Marek Krajčovič and DaviDevMod andrewbranch commented on Apr 14, 2022 The plan is to add an experimental new command in VS Code to trigger the behavior added in #48264. I’ll keep this thread updated to let you know when you can try it out in VS Code Insiders + typescript@next. Reacted by Andrii Dieiev, Mathieu Hofman, Lauren Yim, Justin Grant, Remco Haszing, disfated, Danizord, Sebastian Andil and marcelmanz Reacted by Andrii Dieiev, parksj10, Remco Haszing, disfated, Danizord and Silver Zachara justingrant commented on Apr 15, 2022 Reacted by Andrew Branch, Guy Carmeli, Zach Wegrzyniak and DaviDevMod andrewbranch commented on May 6, 2022
I’ll keep this thread updated to let you know when you can try it out in VS Code Insiders + typescript@next.
I forgot 🤦♂️
You can try this in VS Code Insiders and typescript@next! And pretty soon it will be in the stable versions. I started an issue to gather feedback: #49003. Thanks! Reacted by ThaJay Reacted by Silver Zachara and Guy Carmeli selrond commented on May 9, 2022 Reacted by Andrew Branch, Guy Carmeli, ThaJay, ouweiya, Hugo Nasciutti and Yush G Reacted by ThaJay, Míla Kuchta and Hugo Nasciutti Reacted by Silver Zachara, Guy Carmeli, ThaJay, David Marshall, Terence, Hugo Nasciutti, Jean Claveau, kaspar poland and Kevin Moritz Reacted by Petr Krejcik, Maxime, ThaJay and Hugo Nasciutti Reacted by ThaJay shayded-exe commented on May 17, 2022 Reacted by Andrew Branch and Hugo Nasciutti
MetadataMetadataDevelopmentNo branches or pull requestsIssue actions
|
