I think we already have a section on TooltipItems in the docs (since they are exposed to other callbacks). Can we link to that section instead of having it duplicated?

Sorry for the delay, I move this documentation from Advanced to proper Chart Configuration part.

Just thinking, while the containing object isdataPoints, wouldn't x and y be better names?

dataPoints.forEach(function(point) {
    point.x; // compared to point.pointX
    point.y; // compared to point.pointY
});

Would also be more consistent with index (and not pointIndex).

Yes I think you are right :)

It makes more sense. I will change this.

I believe the section immediately below this describes the same thing. At a minimum we should add the new x and y properties to that code snippet as well. Maybe we should consider merging these sections as well.

Hello @etimberg ,

I am not sure what you want me to do here. Could you explain more ?

Which sections do you want to merge ? If you are talking about CustomTooltipDataPoint and the one just before, dataPoints is an array so it should be defined as an external section right ?

Also for x and y, which code snippet are you talking about ?

I meant the snippet here https://github.com/chartjs/Chart.js/blob/master/docs/01-Chart-Configuration.md#tooltip-item-interface

I was also thinking to merge with the same section to that 2nd column of the last line of the table becomes Array[TooltipItemInterface]. In other words, merging the CustomTooltipDataPoint and TooltipItemInterface sections since they describe the same thing.

Also, for the tooltip item do we need the x and y properties? the user can look them up if necessary.

Alright, yes up to you we can merge the two interface together.

I didn't know TooltipItemInterface and the CustomTooltipDataPoint were referring to the same thing, that's why I separate the two in the first place.

In my opinion, x and y properties are usefull. I am using them in several of my projects to be able to show individual tooltips at each points position.

Ah, ok. That's my bad, I should have been clearer. If you can merge the doc sections and fix the merge conflict I'll merge this