Remove CheckMode.IsForStringLiteralArgumentCompletions - #55867
Conversation
TypeScript Bot (typescript-bot)
added
the
For Uncommitted Bug
|
This PR doesn't have any linked issues. Please open an issue that references this PR. From there we can discuss and prioritise. |
| //// const nestedExpression = parse({ prop: "foo|/*ts2*/" }) | ||
|
|
||
| verify.completions({ marker: ["ts", "ts2"], exact: ["foo|foo", "foo|bar", "foo|baz"] }); | ||
| verify.completions({ marker: ["ts"], exact: ["foo", "bar", "baz", "foo|foo", "foo|bar", "foo|baz"] }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This matches Ron's initial expectations from #54121 .
The other case, ideally, should provide the same completions but currently, the ones based on the contextual types and the ones based on getCandidateSignaturesForStringLiteralCompletions work quite differently (and even more so with changes from #54121 ). I plan to close the gap between both a little bit but I'm leaving that for future PRs.
Jake Bailey (jakebailey)
left a comment
Jake Bailey (jakebailey)
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems good to me as a cleanup; I the fewer check modes the better 😄
|
TypeScript Bot (@typescript-bot) pack this |
|
Heya Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser), I've started to run the tarball bundle task on this PR at d1477e0. You can monitor the build here. |
|
Heya Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser), I've started to run the diff-based top-repos suite (tsserver) on this PR at d1477e0. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
|
Heya Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser), I've started to run the diff-based user code test suite (tsserver) on this PR at d1477e0. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
|
Heya Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser), I've started to run the diff-based top-repos suite on this PR at d1477e0. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
|
Heya Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser), I've started to run the regular perf test suite on this PR at d1477e0. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
|
Hey Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser), I've packed this into an installable tgz. You can install it for testing by referencing it in your and then running There is also a playground for this build and an npm module you can use via |
|
Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser) Here are the results of running the user test suite comparing Everything looks good! |
|
Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser) Here they are:
CompilerComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
tsserverComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
StartupComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser) Here are the results of running the top-repos suite comparing Everything looks good! |
1 similar comment
|
Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser) Here are the results of running the top-repos suite comparing Everything looks good! |
4 participants
It's just an internal refactor.
I initially removed this special check mode almost entirely in #53996 . It was brought up in #54121 . I managed to remove it while reviewing this PR (see here) but I concluded then that this change should be proposed as a follow up - so here it is :)