allow more "require" for fields

[lublak]

Motivation

To better enforce documentation straight for fields.

Current behavior

Currenlty it is impossible to force this behaviour (@type for fields):

https://jsdoc.app/tags-type.html

Currently if i use match-description

"jsdoc/match-description": [
    "error",
    {
        "matchDescription": "^[a-zA-Z0-9_\\- /\\\\()[\\]{}=?!:.,;*+~#'\"%&<>|]+$",
         "contexts": [
               "any"
         ]
    }
],

but this does not work (as a side note: this also does not apply to the class description).

the require-jsdoc works fine:

"jsdoc/require-jsdoc": [
    "error",
    {
        "publicOnly": true,
        "require": {
            "ArrowFunctionExpression": true,
            "ClassDeclaration": true,
            "ClassExpression": true,
            "FunctionDeclaration": true,
            "FunctionExpression": true,
            "MethodDefinition": false
        },
        "contexts": [
            "MethodDefinition:not([accessibility=\"private\"]) > FunctionExpression",
            "ClassProperty:not([accessibility=\"private\"])",
            "TSPropertySignature"
        ]
    }
],

Desired behavior

I want to force fields to have a description and what type they contain.

Alternatives considered

The only alternative is to control it manually.

[brettz9]

Can you provide some sample jsdoc that you are trying to enforce and which fails?

Your regular expression in match-description doesn't require that a type exist even if the rule were to match more than descriptions. Or are you merely suggesting that the matching doesn't work when contexts: ['any'] is present? If so, please provide an exact sample where it fails.

Also in your issue title, please clarify the specific rule(s) you are asking for more require cases, e.g., if for match-description.

Please note that with the jsdoc setting structuredTags, you can require which tags must have a type (items no. 1 and 2 indicate the default tags where it is or can be required per the jsdoc/valid-types rule).

[lublak]

@brettz9
Sorry, my English is not the best and I have a hard time explaining myself.

I fixed a problem myself because I forgot to also set require-description to "contexts": [ "any" ].

Now i want @type {string} to be enforced in public fields under the description.

Should throw an error: Missing @type

And everything is fine here:

But you already said it was possible. Then I'll have to take a closer look.
It's a bit confusing.

And thank you for your patience. <3

[brettz9]

@brettz9
Sorry, my English is not the best and I have a hard time explaining myself.

No worries, you are doing just fine. :-) Just wanted more examples which you've given.

Now i want @type {string} to be enforced in public fields under the description.

But you already said it was possible. Then I'll have to take a closer look.

Actually, I had not understood your intent. I was speaking about the ability to require that a type (the part within the curly brackets) is always present when specific tags are used (e.g., if you use @type, there must be a {SomeType} with the tag as when you use @implements). But that mechanism won't report that a particular tag (including @type) is required for a particular structure. That request can be considered a dupe of the non-global part of #467 . Feel free to subscribe there in case we may implement this in the future.