_set(key, value, ttl = 0, callback = () => {}) {
    let exd = ttl > 0 ? LocalStorageDriver._now + ttl : null;

    try {
      LocalStorage.set(key, {value: value, exd: exd});

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  inject(methods = null) {
    let predefinedMethods = this.methods;
    let predefinedMethodsNames = Object.keys(predefinedMethods);

    methods = methods || predefinedMethodsNames;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  _get(key, callback = () => {}) {
    // @todo: get rid of this cache?
    if (this._cache.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
      let parsedData = this._cache[key];

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  constructor(resource, name, type, methods, source, region, forceUserIdentity, skipCompile, apiCache, scope, api) {
    this._resource = resource;
    this._name = name;
    this._type = type;
    this._methods = methods;

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  microservice(identifier = null) {
    if (!identifier) {
      identifier = this._config.microserviceIdentifier;
    }

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  static _readdirp(dir, basePath = null) {
    let _files = [];

    let files = fs.readdirSync(dir);

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  get(modelName) {
    if (!this.has(modelName)) {
      modelName = this._lispCase(modelName);

      if (!this.has(modelName)) {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  static _buildConsole() {
    let nativeConsole = ConsoleDriver.nativeConsole;
    let console = {};

    for (let i in ConsoleDriver.METHODS_TO_OVERRIDE) {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  boot(kernel, callback) {
    let globals = kernel.config.globals;
    let drivers = globals.logDrivers || {};

    // add console driver by default to all environments except for PROD

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  vote(context) {
    for (let voter of this._negativeVoters) {
      if (voter.vote(context)) {
        return false;
      }

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  _loadSecurityCredentials(callback) {
    let securityService = this._action.resource.security;

    if (!securityService) {
      callback(new MissingSecurityServiceException(), null);

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  get identityId() {
    let identityId = null;
    let credentials = this.credentialsManager.systemCredentials;

    if (this.lambdaContext) {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  request(payload = {}, method = null) {
    method = method || (this._methods.length > 0 ? this._methods[0] : Action.HTTP_VERBS[0]);

    if (this._methods.length > 0 && this._methods.indexOf(method) === -1) {
      throw new UnknownMethodException(method, this._methods);

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  _fillActions() {
    this._actions = {};

    for (let actionName in this._rawActions) {
      if (!this._rawActions.hasOwnProperty(actionName)) {

Close

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

  /**

Close

Validates JSDoc comments are syntactically correct (valid-jsdoc)

JSDoc is a JavaScript API documentation generator. It uses specially-formatted comments inside of code to generate API documentation automatically. For example, this is what a JSDoc comment looks like for a function:

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {int} num1 The first number.
 * @param {int} num2 The second number.
 * @returns {int} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function sum(num1, num2) {
    return num1 + num2;
}

The JSDoc comments have a syntax all their own, and it is easy to mistakenly mistype a comment because comments aren't often checked for correctness in editors. Further, it's very easy for the function definition to get out of sync with the comments, making the comments a source of confusion and error.

Rule Details

This rule aims to prevent invalid and incomplete JSDoc comments. It will warn when any of the following is true:

• There is a JSDoc syntax error
• A @param or @returns is used without a type specified
• A @param or @returns is used without a description
• A comment for a function is missing @returns
• A parameter has no associated @param in the JSDoc comment
• @params are out of order with named arguments

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: "error"*/

// missing type for @param and missing @returns
/**                                 // 2 errors
 * A description
 * @param num1 The first number.
 */
function foo(num1) {
    // ...
}

// missing description for @param
/**                                 //error Missing JSDoc parameter description for 'num1'.
 * A description
 * @param {int} num1
 * @returns {void}
 */
function foo(num1) {
    // ...
}

// no description for @returns
/**                                 //error Missing JSDoc return description.
 * A description
 * @returns {int}
 */
function foo() {
    // ...
}

// no type for @returns
/**                                 //error JSDoc syntax error.
 * A description
 * @returns Something awesome
 */
function foo() {
    // ...
}

// missing @param
/**                                 //error Missing JSDoc for parameter 'a'.
 * A description
 * @returns {void}
 */
function foo(a) {
    // ...
}

// incorrect @param
/**                                 //error Expected JSDoc for 'a' but found 'b'.
 * A description
 * @param {string} b Desc
 * @returns {void}
 */
function foo(a) {
    // ...
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: "error"*/

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {int} num1 The first number.
 * @param {int} num2 The second number.
 * @returns {int} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(num1, num2) {
    return num1 + num2;
}

/**
 * Represents a sum.
 * @param {int} num1 The first number.
 * @param {int} num2 The second number.
 * @constructor
 */
function foo(num1, num2) { }

// use of @override make @param and @returns optional
/**
 * A description
 * @override
 */
function foo(a) {
    return a;
}

// @returns is not required for a constructor
class Foo {
    /**
    *
    * @param {int} num1 The first number.
    */
    constructor(num1) {
        this.num1 = num1;
    }
}

// @returns allowed without return if used with @abstract
class Foo {
    /**
     * @abstract
     * @return {Number} num
     */
    abstractMethod () {
        throw new Error('Not implemented');
    }
}

Options

prefer

JSDoc offers a lot of tags with overlapping meaning. For example, both @return and @returns are acceptable for specifying the return value of a function. However, you may want to enforce a certain tag be used instead of others. You can specify your preferences regarding tag substitution by providing a mapping called prefer in the rule configuration. For example, to specify that @returns should be used instead of @return, you can use the following configuration:

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "prefer": {
        "return": "returns"
    }
}]

With this configuration, ESLint will warn when it finds @return and recommend to replace it with @returns.

requireReturn

By default ESLint requires you to document every function with a @return tag regardless of whether there is anything returned by the function. If instead you want to enforce that only functions with a return statement are documented with a @return tag, set the requireReturn option to false. When requireReturn is false, every function documented with a @return tag must have a return statement, and every function with a return statement must have a @return tag.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireReturn": false
}]

requireParamDescription

By default ESLint requires you to specify a description for each @param. You can choose not to require descriptions for parameters by setting requireParamDescription to false.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireParamDescription": false
}]

requireReturnDescription

By default ESLint requires you to specify a description for each @return. You can choose not to require descriptions for @return by setting requireReturnDescription to false.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireReturnDescription": false
}]

matchDescription

Specify a regular expression to validate jsdoc comment block description against.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "matchDescription": "^[A-Z][A-Za-z0-9\\s]*[.]$"
}]

requireReturnType

By default ESLint requires you to specify type for @return tag for every documented function.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireReturnType": false
}]

preferType

It will validate all the types from jsdoc with the options setup by the user. Inside the options, key should be what the type you want to check and the value of it should be what the expected type should be. Note that we don't check for spelling mistakes with this option. In the example below, it will expect the "object" to start with an uppercase and all the "string" type to start with a lowercase.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "preferType": {
        "String": "string",
        "object": "Object",
        "test": "TesT"
    }
}]

Examples of incorrect code for a sample of "preferType" options:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: ["error", { "preferType": { "String": "string", "object": "Object", "test": "TesT" } }]*/

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {String} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {Array<string>} param1 The first parameter.
 * @param {{1:test}} param2 The second parameter.
 * @returns {object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1, param2) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {String|int} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}</string>

Examples of correct code for a sample of "preferType" options:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: ["error", { "preferType": { "String": "string", "object": "Object", "test": "TesT" } }]*/

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {string} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {Object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {Array<string>} param1 The first parameter.
 * @param {{1:TesT}} param2 The second parameter.
 * @returns {Object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1, param2) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {string|int} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {Object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}</string>

When Not To Use It

If you aren't using JSDoc, then you can safely turn this rule off.

Further Reading

• JSDoc Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  /**

Close

Validates JSDoc comments are syntactically correct (valid-jsdoc)

JSDoc is a JavaScript API documentation generator. It uses specially-formatted comments inside of code to generate API documentation automatically. For example, this is what a JSDoc comment looks like for a function:

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {int} num1 The first number.
 * @param {int} num2 The second number.
 * @returns {int} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function sum(num1, num2) {
    return num1 + num2;
}

The JSDoc comments have a syntax all their own, and it is easy to mistakenly mistype a comment because comments aren't often checked for correctness in editors. Further, it's very easy for the function definition to get out of sync with the comments, making the comments a source of confusion and error.

Rule Details

This rule aims to prevent invalid and incomplete JSDoc comments. It will warn when any of the following is true:

• There is a JSDoc syntax error
• A @param or @returns is used without a type specified
• A @param or @returns is used without a description
• A comment for a function is missing @returns
• A parameter has no associated @param in the JSDoc comment
• @params are out of order with named arguments

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: "error"*/

// missing type for @param and missing @returns
/**                                 // 2 errors
 * A description
 * @param num1 The first number.
 */
function foo(num1) {
    // ...
}

// missing description for @param
/**                                 //error Missing JSDoc parameter description for 'num1'.
 * A description
 * @param {int} num1
 * @returns {void}
 */
function foo(num1) {
    // ...
}

// no description for @returns
/**                                 //error Missing JSDoc return description.
 * A description
 * @returns {int}
 */
function foo() {
    // ...
}

// no type for @returns
/**                                 //error JSDoc syntax error.
 * A description
 * @returns Something awesome
 */
function foo() {
    // ...
}

// missing @param
/**                                 //error Missing JSDoc for parameter 'a'.
 * A description
 * @returns {void}
 */
function foo(a) {
    // ...
}

// incorrect @param
/**                                 //error Expected JSDoc for 'a' but found 'b'.
 * A description
 * @param {string} b Desc
 * @returns {void}
 */
function foo(a) {
    // ...
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: "error"*/

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {int} num1 The first number.
 * @param {int} num2 The second number.
 * @returns {int} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(num1, num2) {
    return num1 + num2;
}

/**
 * Represents a sum.
 * @param {int} num1 The first number.
 * @param {int} num2 The second number.
 * @constructor
 */
function foo(num1, num2) { }

// use of @override make @param and @returns optional
/**
 * A description
 * @override
 */
function foo(a) {
    return a;
}

// @returns is not required for a constructor
class Foo {
    /**
    *
    * @param {int} num1 The first number.
    */
    constructor(num1) {
        this.num1 = num1;
    }
}

// @returns allowed without return if used with @abstract
class Foo {
    /**
     * @abstract
     * @return {Number} num
     */
    abstractMethod () {
        throw new Error('Not implemented');
    }
}

Options

prefer

JSDoc offers a lot of tags with overlapping meaning. For example, both @return and @returns are acceptable for specifying the return value of a function. However, you may want to enforce a certain tag be used instead of others. You can specify your preferences regarding tag substitution by providing a mapping called prefer in the rule configuration. For example, to specify that @returns should be used instead of @return, you can use the following configuration:

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "prefer": {
        "return": "returns"
    }
}]

With this configuration, ESLint will warn when it finds @return and recommend to replace it with @returns.

requireReturn

By default ESLint requires you to document every function with a @return tag regardless of whether there is anything returned by the function. If instead you want to enforce that only functions with a return statement are documented with a @return tag, set the requireReturn option to false. When requireReturn is false, every function documented with a @return tag must have a return statement, and every function with a return statement must have a @return tag.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireReturn": false
}]

requireParamDescription

By default ESLint requires you to specify a description for each @param. You can choose not to require descriptions for parameters by setting requireParamDescription to false.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireParamDescription": false
}]

requireReturnDescription

By default ESLint requires you to specify a description for each @return. You can choose not to require descriptions for @return by setting requireReturnDescription to false.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireReturnDescription": false
}]

matchDescription

Specify a regular expression to validate jsdoc comment block description against.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "matchDescription": "^[A-Z][A-Za-z0-9\\s]*[.]$"
}]

requireReturnType

By default ESLint requires you to specify type for @return tag for every documented function.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireReturnType": false
}]

preferType

It will validate all the types from jsdoc with the options setup by the user. Inside the options, key should be what the type you want to check and the value of it should be what the expected type should be. Note that we don't check for spelling mistakes with this option. In the example below, it will expect the "object" to start with an uppercase and all the "string" type to start with a lowercase.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "preferType": {
        "String": "string",
        "object": "Object",
        "test": "TesT"
    }
}]

Examples of incorrect code for a sample of "preferType" options:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: ["error", { "preferType": { "String": "string", "object": "Object", "test": "TesT" } }]*/

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {String} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {Array<string>} param1 The first parameter.
 * @param {{1:test}} param2 The second parameter.
 * @returns {object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1, param2) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {String|int} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}</string>

Examples of correct code for a sample of "preferType" options:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: ["error", { "preferType": { "String": "string", "object": "Object", "test": "TesT" } }]*/

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {string} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {Object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {Array<string>} param1 The first parameter.
 * @param {{1:TesT}} param2 The second parameter.
 * @returns {Object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1, param2) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {string|int} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {Object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}</string>

When Not To Use It

If you aren't using JSDoc, then you can safely turn this rule off.

Further Reading

• JSDoc Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

  /**

Close

Validates JSDoc comments are syntactically correct (valid-jsdoc)

JSDoc is a JavaScript API documentation generator. It uses specially-formatted comments inside of code to generate API documentation automatically. For example, this is what a JSDoc comment looks like for a function:

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {int} num1 The first number.
 * @param {int} num2 The second number.
 * @returns {int} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function sum(num1, num2) {
    return num1 + num2;
}

The JSDoc comments have a syntax all their own, and it is easy to mistakenly mistype a comment because comments aren't often checked for correctness in editors. Further, it's very easy for the function definition to get out of sync with the comments, making the comments a source of confusion and error.

Rule Details

This rule aims to prevent invalid and incomplete JSDoc comments. It will warn when any of the following is true:

• There is a JSDoc syntax error
• A @param or @returns is used without a type specified
• A @param or @returns is used without a description
• A comment for a function is missing @returns
• A parameter has no associated @param in the JSDoc comment
• @params are out of order with named arguments

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: "error"*/

// missing type for @param and missing @returns
/**                                 // 2 errors
 * A description
 * @param num1 The first number.
 */
function foo(num1) {
    // ...
}

// missing description for @param
/**                                 //error Missing JSDoc parameter description for 'num1'.
 * A description
 * @param {int} num1
 * @returns {void}
 */
function foo(num1) {
    // ...
}

// no description for @returns
/**                                 //error Missing JSDoc return description.
 * A description
 * @returns {int}
 */
function foo() {
    // ...
}

// no type for @returns
/**                                 //error JSDoc syntax error.
 * A description
 * @returns Something awesome
 */
function foo() {
    // ...
}

// missing @param
/**                                 //error Missing JSDoc for parameter 'a'.
 * A description
 * @returns {void}
 */
function foo(a) {
    // ...
}

// incorrect @param
/**                                 //error Expected JSDoc for 'a' but found 'b'.
 * A description
 * @param {string} b Desc
 * @returns {void}
 */
function foo(a) {
    // ...
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: "error"*/

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {int} num1 The first number.
 * @param {int} num2 The second number.
 * @returns {int} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(num1, num2) {
    return num1 + num2;
}

/**
 * Represents a sum.
 * @param {int} num1 The first number.
 * @param {int} num2 The second number.
 * @constructor
 */
function foo(num1, num2) { }

// use of @override make @param and @returns optional
/**
 * A description
 * @override
 */
function foo(a) {
    return a;
}

// @returns is not required for a constructor
class Foo {
    /**
    *
    * @param {int} num1 The first number.
    */
    constructor(num1) {
        this.num1 = num1;
    }
}

// @returns allowed without return if used with @abstract
class Foo {
    /**
     * @abstract
     * @return {Number} num
     */
    abstractMethod () {
        throw new Error('Not implemented');
    }
}

Options

prefer

JSDoc offers a lot of tags with overlapping meaning. For example, both @return and @returns are acceptable for specifying the return value of a function. However, you may want to enforce a certain tag be used instead of others. You can specify your preferences regarding tag substitution by providing a mapping called prefer in the rule configuration. For example, to specify that @returns should be used instead of @return, you can use the following configuration:

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "prefer": {
        "return": "returns"
    }
}]

With this configuration, ESLint will warn when it finds @return and recommend to replace it with @returns.

requireReturn

By default ESLint requires you to document every function with a @return tag regardless of whether there is anything returned by the function. If instead you want to enforce that only functions with a return statement are documented with a @return tag, set the requireReturn option to false. When requireReturn is false, every function documented with a @return tag must have a return statement, and every function with a return statement must have a @return tag.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireReturn": false
}]

requireParamDescription

By default ESLint requires you to specify a description for each @param. You can choose not to require descriptions for parameters by setting requireParamDescription to false.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireParamDescription": false
}]

requireReturnDescription

By default ESLint requires you to specify a description for each @return. You can choose not to require descriptions for @return by setting requireReturnDescription to false.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireReturnDescription": false
}]

matchDescription

Specify a regular expression to validate jsdoc comment block description against.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "matchDescription": "^[A-Z][A-Za-z0-9\\s]*[.]$"
}]

requireReturnType

By default ESLint requires you to specify type for @return tag for every documented function.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "requireReturnType": false
}]

preferType

It will validate all the types from jsdoc with the options setup by the user. Inside the options, key should be what the type you want to check and the value of it should be what the expected type should be. Note that we don't check for spelling mistakes with this option. In the example below, it will expect the "object" to start with an uppercase and all the "string" type to start with a lowercase.

"valid-jsdoc": ["error", {
    "preferType": {
        "String": "string",
        "object": "Object",
        "test": "TesT"
    }
}]

Examples of incorrect code for a sample of "preferType" options:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: ["error", { "preferType": { "String": "string", "object": "Object", "test": "TesT" } }]*/

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {String} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {Array<string>} param1 The first parameter.
 * @param {{1:test}} param2 The second parameter.
 * @returns {object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1, param2) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {String|int} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}</string>

Examples of correct code for a sample of "preferType" options:

/*eslint valid-jsdoc: ["error", { "preferType": { "String": "string", "object": "Object", "test": "TesT" } }]*/

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {string} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {Object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {Array<string>} param1 The first parameter.
 * @param {{1:TesT}} param2 The second parameter.
 * @returns {Object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1, param2) {
    return {a: param1};
}

/**
 * Adds two numbers together.
 * @param {string|int} param1 The first parameter.
 * @returns {Object} The sum of the two numbers.
 */
function foo(param1) {
    return {a: param1};
}</string>

When Not To Use It

If you aren't using JSDoc, then you can safely turn this rule off.

Further Reading

• JSDoc Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/