Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#12838 closed enhancement (fixed)
[patch] [cla] dojo/_base argument comments fix
Reported by: | Stephen Chung | Owned by: | Eugene Lazutkin |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | lowest | Milestone: | 1.7 |
Component: | Core | Version: | 1.6.0 |
Keywords: | Cc: | ||
Blocked By: | Blocking: |
Description
Fixes some types in argument comments.
Puts in comments where missing.
Attachments (2)
Change History (7)
Changed 10 years ago by
Attachment: | dojo._base.patch added |
---|
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
Milestone: | 1.6.2 → tbd |
---|---|
Summary: | dojo/_base argument comments fix → [patch] [cla] dojo/_base argument comments fix |
comment:2 follow-up: 3 Changed 10 years ago by
Bill, you're correct. Sorry I forgot to remove those few patches that have corresponding comment blocks. :-)
Note: only the closure compiler needs JsDoc? comments. However, it can also be generated from the comment block in a post-processing pass in addition to in-line argument type comments.
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
Milestone: | tbd → 1.7 |
---|---|
Owner: | set to Eugene Lazutkin |
Status: | new → assigned |
Replying to schungx:
Bill, you're correct. Sorry I forgot to remove those few patches that have corresponding comment blocks. :-)
Are you going to update your patch? Or is it good already?
Changed 10 years ago by
Attachment: | dojo._base.2.patch added |
---|
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
Patch updated. Unfortunately I neglected to click the "replace" checkbox, so now the new patch is in "dojo._base.2.patch"
"dojo.place" and "dojo.create" have argument types in the comment block below the function declaration but not in-line with the arguments. Not sure whether the comment block counts as duplicated type comments, so I just left the two lines in the patch. It appears to be more the standard style these days with in-line type comments and no type in the block comment below the function declaration.
Note that if the data types should only be listed once, for example for dojo.byId() we already have:
So we don't need:
Or is that for the benefit of closure compiler?