Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: interface statement can have decorators #5202

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ncaq
Copy link

@ncaq ncaq commented Nov 27, 2024

The actual implementation was not reflected in the tree-sitter, so it was misunderstood when the tree-sitter was created.

@ncaq ncaq force-pushed the deviation-from-decorator-implementation branch from 9b3c531 to 4d96218 Compare November 27, 2024 05:02
ncaq added a commit to ncaq/tree-sitter-typespec that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2024
Indeed, the web documentation makes it appear at first glance that interface does not have decorators,
but looking at the implementation, it does.
It is also shown in the example code.

<https://github.com/microsoft/typespec/blob/a939c140980805dc66a9b6fef70be5647b1c9680/packages/samples/specs/versioning/main.tsp#L51>

The PR to fix the standard and documentation has not yet been merged, but has already been submitted.

[docs: interface statement can have decorators by ncaq · Pull Request #5202 · microsoft/typespec](microsoft/typespec#5202)

I found it because of a problem that the parser here could not highlight the sample code correctly.

I'll submit a PR here first as well.
ncaq added a commit to ncaq/tree-sitter-typespec that referenced this pull request Nov 29, 2024
Indeed, the web documentation makes it appear at first glance that interface does not have decorators,
but looking at the implementation, it does.
It is also shown in the example code.

<https://github.com/microsoft/typespec/blob/a939c140980805dc66a9b6fef70be5647b1c9680/packages/samples/specs/versioning/main.tsp#L51>

The PR to fix the standard and documentation has not yet been merged, but has already been submitted.

[docs: interface statement can have decorators by ncaq · Pull Request #5202 · microsoft/typespec](microsoft/typespec#5202)

I found it because of a problem that the parser here could not highlight the sample code correctly.

I'll submit a PR here first as well.
happenslol pushed a commit to happenslol/tree-sitter-typespec that referenced this pull request Nov 29, 2024
* fix: Allow `interface_statement` to have `decorator_list`

Indeed, the web documentation makes it appear at first glance that interface does not have decorators,
but looking at the implementation, it does.
It is also shown in the example code.

<https://github.com/microsoft/typespec/blob/a939c140980805dc66a9b6fef70be5647b1c9680/packages/samples/specs/versioning/main.tsp#L51>

The PR to fix the standard and documentation has not yet been merged, but has already been submitted.

[docs: interface statement can have decorators by ncaq · Pull Request #5202 · microsoft/typespec](microsoft/typespec#5202)

I found it because of a problem that the parser here could not highlight the sample code correctly.
@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service bot added the stale Mark a PR that hasn't been recently updated and will be closed. label Jan 6, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @ncaq. Your PR has had no update for 30 days and it is marked as a stale PR. If it is not updated within 30 days, the PR will automatically be closed. If you want to refresh the PR, please remove the stale label.

@ncaq
Copy link
Author

ncaq commented Jan 6, 2025

My PR living.

ncaq added 2 commits January 7, 2025 01:14
Caused confusion for standards writers and others.
Used list format because of the large amount of Examples.
The actual implementation was not reflected in the tree-sitter, so it was misunderstood when the tree-sitter was created.
@ncaq ncaq force-pushed the deviation-from-decorator-implementation branch from 4d96218 to fb43fff Compare January 6, 2025 16:14
@witemple-msft witemple-msft self-requested a review as a code owner January 9, 2025 16:41
Copy link
Member

@witemple-msft witemple-msft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we need to enumerate everything that can be decorated, since almost everything in TypeSpec can be decorated as long as it is a declaration of a Type. I recommended some slightly different language in my comments, but I'm happy to include interfaces specifically.

packages/spec/src/spec.emu.html Show resolved Hide resolved
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
stale Mark a PR that hasn't been recently updated and will be closed.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants