Better support for custom types

[chrisui]

This is more of a "would you be willing to accept a pull request which does this?" question than an issue of sorts. :)

I would really like to extend the functionality of "custom" types so that:

1. We support destructured imports (Eg. PropTypes.array - note the lack of React.)
2. We allow common react-esque prop type function patterns to be picked up with custom props in the same way that arrayOf is currently handled. (Eg. PropTypes.iterableOf(PropTypes.record(User)))

Basically I feel the library should be able to support custom user prop types in such a way we don't have to reparse the raw value which would mean anyone can easily implement simple custom prop types and create documentation from that.

Custom prop types are super useful in building a real-world app with React and so I would like to see how we can help developers document these too.

We, at Lystable, want to build an open living component docs solution and are hoping react-docgen can feature at the core!

[chrisui]

To clarify here are a few examples:

Ex 1. Firstly the destructuring pattern should be supported.

static propTypes = {
  prop: PropTypes.string
}

// yields {type: {name: 'string'}}

Ex 2. With the above the [x].isRequired would be a common pattern we can extract.

static propTypes = {
  prop: PropTypes.string.isRequired
}

// yields {type: {name: 'string'}, required: true}

Ex 3. Custom function prop-types should be supported.

static propTypes = {
  prop: PropTypes.record(User)
}

// yields {type: {name: 'record', value: 'User'}}

Ex 4. Again, .isRequired pattern should be honoured.

static propTypes = {
  prop: PropTypes.record(User).isRequired
}

// yields {type: {name: 'record', value: 'User'}, isRequired: true}

Ex 5. Function pattern will support nested types.

static propTypes = {
  prop: PropTypes.iterableOf(PropTypes.record(User))
}

// yields {type: {name: 'iterableOf', value: {name: 'record', value: 'User'}}}

Ex 6. To confirm, these custom props can be used deeply.

static propTypes = {
  prop: PropTypes.iterableOf(PropTypes.oneOf([PropTypes.record(User), PropTypes.bool])
}

// yields {type: {name: 'iterableOf', value: {name: 'enum', values: [{name: 'record', value: 'User'}, ...]}}}

Notes/thoughts:

• Custom enum syntax is not needed as standard oneOf covers any possible usage of this.
• .raw should still be present on the type object
• This output implements a breaking change now that name: 'custom' has gone.
  • Can't see this as being an issue as .raw still exists and consumers can still do the same stuff
  • If this is an issue we could just have a new .customName property.

[fkling]

Sorry for the late reply. Just to clarify, all your examples would work on objects that are not React.PropTypes and have arbitrary methods. E.g.

static propTypes = {
  prop: Types.validationFunction
}

// yields {type: {name: 'validationFunction'}}

correct?

If so, yes, that would be great! Thank for you for the detailed list, that makes a lot of sense to me.

[chrisui]

That is correct.

If you agree also:

We would also accept a single variable/method reference. Ie.

static propTypes = {
  prop: validationFunction
  // or
  prop: validationFunction(props, propName, ...) {}
}

// yields {type: {name: 'validationFunction'}}

isRequired is the only special case property name where we stop looking further I think. Which results in the following behaviour:

static propTypes = {
  prop: Types.isRequired
}

// yields {type: {name: 'Types'}}

[chrisui]

My last comment may be a second iteration though looking at the time I have available ;)

[fkling]

How would you resolve a.very.long.member.access.chain? Would you just look at the last property? Overall this looks very reasonable to me and I will gladly accept a PR for this :)

I believe it wouldn't even be too much effort to implement it with the utility functions that react-docgen has.

[chrisui]

This was exactly what I was just thinking of as well. Not unreasonable to expect users may want to have more granular namespacing

I think we take the last property of the chain for now and we can see what use cases come up. .raw will always be there for manual inspection anyway.

I'll get to work!

[chrisui]

Any quick pointers to get me going quicker will be appreciated :P

[fkling]

Looking at the current implementation would be a good start: https://github.com/reactjs/react-docgen/blob/master/src/utils/getPropType.js

[mik01aj]

@Chrisui this is a great spec, thank you! Do you have any progress on this?

[levithomason]

Ditto. I'm also wondering if this may actually become a plugin in light of #115.