Disable extra property reporting #679
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
brettz9
force-pushed
the
disableExtraPropertyReporting
branch
3 times, most recently
from
ec77c4e
to
1d84366
Compare
…` to allow extra properties to be documented without error (as long as there are no siblings destructured as for such cases, they will still be expected since the function is not using them)
brettz9
force-pushed
the
disableExtraPropertyReporting
branch
from
1d84366
to
0cc1f94
Compare
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 31.3.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Builds on #678. Closes #676.
check-param-names): add optionsdisableExtraPropertyReportingto allow extra properties to be documented without error (as long as there are no siblings destructured as for such cases, they will still be expected since the function is not using them)There may be cases where a project would want to document even these, but they can do so by using a separate
typedef, so I'm not sure there's need for an additional boolean to handle that case.