[doc] Add explicit types for slider callbacks #19867
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
|
No bundle size changes comparing 49e1adf...a354333 |
eps1lon
approved these changes
Feb 26, 2020
eps1lon
added
docs
|
@deymundson Great work! Thanks. |
This was referenced Mar 10, 2020
This was referenced Mar 20, 2020
EsoterikStare
pushed a commit
to EsoterikStare/material-ui
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 30, 2020
This was referenced Apr 16, 2020
oliviertassinari
added
the
component: slider
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes #19739
When adding the
number | number[]type to the param in Slider.js I discovered that union types and array types were not yet supported by the documentation generator, so I added some basic support for those types. The union type was straight-forward, although it required some recursive handling. The support I added for array types is quite brittle, but I think given the context in which this code is used it would be reasonable to add more sophisticated support when / if it is needed.There are a couple spurious changes to the API doc, though looking at the diff it looks like some fixes to latent issues.
P.S. This is the first pull request I submitted for open source development, so if there's anything I can improve / should do / should not do, please let me know!