Before You File a Documentation Request Please Confirm You Have Done The Following...

• I have looked for existingopen or closed documentation requests that match my proposal.
• I haveread the FAQ and my problem is not listed.

Suggested Changes

Rather than a type declaration on the rule page like so...

typeOptions=[{/** Type specifiers of functions whose calls are safe to float. */allowForKnownSafeCalls?:(|{from:'file';name:[string, ...string[]]|string;path?:string;}|{from:'lib';name:[string, ...string[]]|string;}|{from:'package';name:[string, ...string[]]|string;package:string;}|string)[];},// ...];

...I'd prefer to see a type declaration like so:

typeOptions=[{/** Type specifiers of functions whose calls are safe to float. */allowForKnownSafeCalls?:(|{from:'file';name:string[]|string;path?:string;}|{from:'lib';name:string[]|string;}|{from:'package';name:string[]|string;package:string;}|string)[];},// ...];

While the non-empty-array-type pattern is more correct for runtime code, it negatively impacts the readability for documentation purposes.

I propose: let's use simpleT[] array types rather than[T, ...T[]] types for the documentation types only being read by humans.

Note that we can optionally add a "types simplified for clarity" caveat if we'd like. (random example of another doc site that adds such a caveat)

Affected URL(s)

http://typescript-eslint.io/rules/no-floating-promises#options

Additional Info

likely involves changes to rule-schema-to-typescript-types