[API] No jsDocParsingMode, and reparsed JSDoc types appear as syntax on the declarations they document

[knutwannheden]

Description

Two related gaps around JSDoc, which together make it hard for a tool that reproduces source text to work with the 7.x API.

1. There is no jsDocParsingMode. In 6.x a consumer could pass jsDocParsingMode: JSDocParsingMode.ParseNone to createSourceFile and get a tree with no JSDoc in it. The 7.x API exposes no parse options, and JSDocParsingMode is not exported from any path.

2. JSDoc types are reparsed into the syntax tree. A @param/@returns type becomes a real type annotation on the declaration it documents, carrying offsets that point inside the comment:

import { API } from "typescript/unstable/sync";
import { NodeFlags } from "typescript/unstable/ast";

// b.js, with allowJs + checkJs:
//   /**
//    * @param {number} a
//    */
//   export function g(a) { return a }

const fn = program.getSourceFile("/probe/b.js").statements[0];
const type = fn.parameters[0].type;

type !== undefined                     // true  — the parameter has a type annotation
(type.flags & NodeFlags.Reparsed) !== 0 // true
[type.pos, type.end]                    // [15, 21] — inside the comment

The source has no annotation there. A tool that reads node.type and prints it emits syntax the file never contained:

// source
export function resolveMatchingConfig(regularPath, config) { return {} }

// printed back, with the JSDoc types read as syntax
export function resolveMatchingConfig(regularPath, config:Array<string|string[]>|Array<SidebarGroup>|[link:string]):base { return {} }

NodeFlags.Reparsed is exactly the signal needed, and it works — but it has to be consulted at every field access, not only when walking children, because node.type reaches these nodes directly. That is easy to get wrong and gives no diagnostic when you do.

3. Syntax errors are reported from inside JSDoc. With allowJs/checkJs, malformed JSDoc types produce syntactic diagnostics against the file:

(5,74): '}' expected. [1005]
(6,19): '}' expected. [1005]

Handing those to a user as parse errors is wrong when the tool does not consume JSDoc at all. Avoiding that is what ParseNone was for in 6.x; the only workaround I found is to drop diagnostics whose position falls inside a comment range, which requires scanning the file separately.

Suggested resolution

Any one of these would be enough for my case, in rough order of preference:

1. A parse option equivalent to jsDocParsingMode, on whatever carries parse options when API feature roadmap #63875's createSourceFile lands.
2. Keeping reparsed nodes off the declaration's own fields (reachable through a dedicated accessor instead), so node.type is what the source says.
3. Failing both, documenting that NodeFlags.Reparsed must be checked on every node read from a field, and not reporting JSDoc-internal syntax errors as file diagnostics.

Use case

Porting OpenRewrite's JavaScript/TypeScript parser from the 6.x API. It builds a lossless tree and prints it back byte-for-byte, and it sets jsDocParsingMode: ParseNone today precisely because it does not model JSDoc. On 7.x it had to filter NodeFlags.Reparsed in two separate places and post-filter diagnostics by comment range to round-trip the same files.

Verified against 7.0.2 and typescript@next (7.1.0-dev.20260827.1).

Related: #63892 (missing child/token getters) is the other half of what a lossless-syntax consumer needs from this API.