This isn’t really intuitive to understand IMO. You...
# docs
This isn’t really intuitive to understand IMO. You have to have already understood the way Pulumi works, AKA, that these are the types that represent that specific config. I also think a lot of people coming into Pulumi may be using a TS for the first time. I know we were. Thus having
for example would look more like a question than a nullable string as the type.
^ is also inconsistent with the first image, as there are no types here. Instead, you get the method signature to tell you the types, but it requires a lot of horizontal scrolling.
This is a fair point. We currently try to show the "optional"-ness in the type here. But since we already show that in the "red dot" annotation, it may keep things overall simpler to just not include the optionalness in the type displayed here - it is likely more distracting that value adding. Thoughts @clever-sunset-76585 @miniature-musician-31262?
Since I have the image here, it would also make sense to not make the method signature a single line.
As right now it sucks having to scroll
I agree with the question-mark thing (it’s redundant and somewhat esoteric to TS) and had it as a note to suggest that we remove it, yeah.