Function defined as
expandNodes(items: {nodeOrLink: {id: string}, type: string, expandedType: string | null}[]){
...
}
should be documented as
expandNodes(items: {nodeOrLink: {id: string}, type: string, expandedType: string | null}[]): void
Function defined as
expandNodes(items: {nodeOrLink: {id: string}, type: string, expandedType: string | null}[]){
...
}
is documented as
expandNodes(items: object[]): void
Run typedoc with a ts file containing a class containing the above function. (TypeScript strict mode is on, in case that makes a difference.)
If this is due to a typedoc setting or something then I apologize but I couldn't find such a setting documented anywhere.
Perhaps related: #953, #901
Yes, it does look like it might be the same bug, although excludeNotExported doesn't seem to make any difference to me.
Does anyone have a work-around for this? I have a bunch of types which are declared through a generic wrapper given an object literal, this makes their generated documentation much less useful.
type CastContext<C> = {
cast: typeof UNICAST
client ?: C
} | {
cast: typeof MULTICAST
clients: C[]
} | {
cast: typeof BROADCAST
}
is rendered as
CastContext<C>: object | object | object
instead of the detailed description of each object
export const UNICAST: unique symbol = Symbol('UNICAST')
is correctly rendered as :
UNICAST: keyof symbol = Symbol('UNICAST')
however, if I refer to it with typeof :
export type Capabilities = typeof UNICAST | typeof MULTICAST | typeof BROADCAST;
it is rendered as :
Capabilities: unique symbol | unique symbol | unique symbol
which is somewhat useless
Another similar problem I ran into in https://github.com/ubclaunchpad/new/issues/22:
export const clubConfig: {
memberCount: number;
currentTeams: Team[];
featuredTeams: Team[];
} = {
/**
* The current or most recent active Launch Pad teams and their primary project.
*
* Each element must satisfy [[`Team`]].
*/
currentTeams: [ ... ]
generates the documentation without taking into account currentTeams: Team[]:

Huh, that's interesting. Looks to me like we are completely ignoring the type annotation, which is definitely an issue... and I thought we did look at that...
These all appear to be fixed in 0.20.



Most helpful comment
These all appear to be fixed in 0.20.