fix(compiler): small improvement to error message handling#63254
fix(compiler): small improvement to error message handling#63254Vikash9546 wants to merge 1 commit intomicrosoft:mainfrom
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR corrects several spelling mistakes across the TypeScript compiler and service code, improving readability/maintainability without changing runtime behavior or public APIs.
Changes:
- Fixes misspellings in internal comments (e.g. “seperately/separator/occurrences/occurred/overridden”).
- Fixes misspellings in local identifier names (e.g.
*Seperated*→*Separated*,*Seperator*→*Separator*).
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| src/services/codefixes/addMissingConst.ts | Renames a misspelled local helper to ...CommaSeparatedInitializer. |
| src/compiler/utilities.ts | Fixes spelling in doc/comments related to extensions and numeric separators. |
| src/compiler/moduleNameResolver.ts | Fixes spelling in a comment (“directory separator”). |
| src/compiler/commandLineParser.ts | Renames a misspelled local variable to lastDirectorySeparatorIndex. |
| src/compiler/checker.ts | Fixes spelling in several internal comments. |
You can also share your feedback on Copilot code review. Take the survey.
| ) { | ||
| // A reverse mapping of `{[K in keyof T[K_1]]: T[K_1]}` is the same as that of `{[K in keyof T]: T}`, since all we care about is | ||
| // inferring to the "type parameter" (or indexed access) shared by the constraint and template. So, to reduce the number of | ||
| // type identities produced, we simplify such indexed access occurences | ||
| // type identities produced, we simplify such indexed access occurrences | ||
| const newTypeParam = (type.constraintType.type as IndexedAccessType).objectType; |
|
From the Pull Request Template:
|
|
With 6.0 out as the final release vehicle for this codebase, we're closing all PRs that don't fit the merge criteria for post-6.0 patches. If you think this was a mistake and this PR fits the post-6.0 patch criteria, please post to the 6.0 iteration issue with details (specifically, which PR and which patch criteria it satisfies). Next steps for PRs:
|
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.