fix(64058): fix reparse jsdoc @extends type arguments for call expressions

[Oleksandr Tarasiuk (a-tarasyuk)]

Fixes #64058

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Fixes JSDoc @extends type arguments for call-expression heritage clauses.

Changes:

• Copies JSDoc type arguments onto the parsed heritage node.
• Adds parser and compiler regression coverage.
• Removes the previous property-access matching helper.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
tsc/internal/parser/reparser.go	Reparses @extends type arguments.
tsc/internal/ast/utilities.go	Removes the old name-matching helper.
tsc/internal/parser/parser_test.go	Tests reparsed AST linkage.
tsc/testdata/tests/cases/conformance/jsdoc/extendsTag7.ts	Adds the compiler regression case.
tsc/testdata/baselines/reference/conformance/extendsTag7.types	Records inferred types.
tsc/testdata/baselines/reference/conformance/extendsTag7.symbols	Records resolved symbols.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

The effective-base symbol gate rejects valid call-expression @extends cases and produces incorrect types and diagnostics.

Once you've addressed the issues Copilot identified, you can request another Copilot review.

Review details

• Files reviewed: 30/30 changed files
• Comments generated: 1
• Review effort level: Balanced

[Jake Bailey (jakebailey)]

Sorry, after thinking about it I'm flip flopping... Your Aug 29 version (a315a46) was right. Copying the type arguments onto the call means the same thing as the TS extends A.extend()<string>. My mixin(A) worry would just produce the same error TS reports for that code.

Could you go back to it with two tweaks?

1. Apply the arguments to any heritage expression that isn't a plain or dotted name (IsEntityNameExpression), not only to calls.
2. For the mismatch check, use assignability (base type assignable to the tag's type) instead of comparing symbols, since a mixin's result has no single symbol, so e.g. @extends {Other<string>} on mixin(A) slips through.

Here's a test covering those; only MismatchedMixin should error:

// @target: esnext
// @allowJs: true
// @checkJs: true
// @strict: true
// @noEmit: true

// @filename: a.js
/** @template T */
class A {
    /** @param {T} value */
    constructor(value) {
        this.value = value;
    }
}

/**
 * @template T
 * @extends {A<T>}
 */
class Sub extends A {
    /** @returns {typeof Sub} */
    static extend() {
        return this;
    }
}

/** @template T */
class Other {
    /** @param {T} other */
    constructor(other) {
        this.other = other;
    }
}

/**
 * @template {new (...args: any[]) => any} C
 * @param {C} Base
 */
function mixin(Base) {
    return class extends Base {
        extra = 1;
    };
}

const ns = { A };
/** @type {boolean} */
let cond = true;

/** @extends {A<string>} */
class ViaMixin extends mixin(A) {}
/** @type {string} */
const viaMixin = new ViaMixin("ok").value;
/** @type {number} */
const viaMixinExtra = new ViaMixin("ok").extra;

/** @extends {Other<string>} */
class MismatchedMixin extends mixin(A) {}

/** @extends {A<string>} */
class ViaSubclass extends Sub.extend() {}
/** @type {string} */
const viaSubclass = new ViaSubclass("ok").value;

/** @extends {A<string>} */
class ViaElementAccess extends ns["A"] {}
/** @type {string} */
const viaElementAccess = new ViaElementAccess("ok").value;

/** @extends {A<string>} */
class ViaConditional extends (cond ? A : A) {}
/** @type {string} */
const viaConditional = new ViaConditional("ok").value;

Thanks for bearing with me!

[Jake Bailey (jakebailey)]

Looks great, thanks! One thing: extends null now gets the arguments too, so /** @extends {A<string>} */ class B extends null {} emits extends null<string> in the .d.ts. Could you skip KindNullKeyword in the reparser and add a test for it?