This style guide includes some basic rules to be applied when writing code in the SAP Cloud SDK. Most of the rules are being checked by lint, but not all of them can be checked. Those that are checked by lint are marked by the following symbol: ✓.
Use kebab case for all file names and directories, except for generated files and markdown files, that are not in the knowledge base.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use camel case */
someDir / someClass.ts;
/* Don't use pascal case */
SomeDir / SomeClass.ts;
/* Don't use snake case */
some_dir / some_class.ts;✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use kebab case */
some-dir/some-class.ts
/* Exceptions apply for generated files and some markdown files */
README.md
node_modules/dependency/index.jsThis is common in most JavaScript/TypeScript projects. This rule applies to all variables, even static ones or reusable constants.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use uppercase snake case */
const FOO_BAR = 'foo';
/* Don't use snake case */
const foo_bar = 'foo';
/* Don't use different case for static variables */
class FooBar {
static FOO_BAR;
readonly READ_ONLY;
}✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use camel case */
const fooBar = 'foo';
/* Use different case for static variables */
class FooBar {
static fooBar;
}Pascal case is common in most JavaScript/TypeScript projects for classes.
✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use pascal case */
class FooBar {
...
}Pascal case is common in most JavaScript/TypeScript projects for interfaces. Don't prefix interfaces with the Hungarian notation 'I' (or other prefixes). If you have a class with the same name as an interface, consider a more general name for the interface or a more specific name for the class - if they are different things it should be possible to name them differently.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use 'I' prefix (or any other prefixes) */
interface IFooBar {
...
}✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use pascal case without prefix */
interface FooBar {
...
}
/* Use speaking names for classes and interfaces */
interface Foo extends FooType {
...
}Pascal case is common in most JavaScript/TypeScript projects for enums and enum properties.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use upper case snake case for enums and enum properties */
enum SomeEnum {
FOO_BAR,
BAR_FOO
}
/* Don't use camel case for enums and enum properties */
enum SomeEnum {
fooBar,
barFoo
}✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use pascal case */
enum SomeEnum {
FooBar,
BarFoo
}In case you want to use an acronym in a variable name, class, interface, enum, function or other names use camel case.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use upper case */
function parseJSON() { ... }✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use camel case */
function parseJson() { ... }Every function should do something and that action should be described with a verb.
The verb should fit the return type and value.
An exception to this can be methods, that operate on an instance directly, e.g. instance.toString(), instance.asObject().
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use functions without verb */
function toFoo(): Foo {
...
}
/* Avoid verbs that imply a different return type or behavior */
function isFoo(): void {
...
throw Error(...);
}✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use functions with verbs */
function transformToFoo(): Foo {
...
}
/* Use functions with verbs that fit the return type */
function isFoo(): boolean {
...
}
/* Use functions with verbs that fit the return type */
function validateFoo(): void {
...
throw Error(...);
}
/* Exception, you can omit verbs in methods, that transform the instance that they are invoked on */
class FooBar {
toString(): string {
...
}
asObject(): Record<string, any> {
...
}
}Use single quotes, unless not possible otherwise, e.g. when your string contains single quotes.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use double quotes */
const foo = 'foo';✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use single quotes */
const foo = 'foo';
/* Use double quotes if the quoted string contains single quotes. */
const foo = "'foo'";
/* Use template string if the quoted string contains double and single quotes. */
const foo = `They know when to use 'single quotes' and "double quotes"`;
### String concatenation
When possible use template literals, this makes the code more readable in most cases.
Feel free to concatenate strings with `+` in case it makes to code better readable.
❌ Examples of **incorrect** code:
```ts
/* Don't concatenate strings with `+` */
const foo = 'foo ' + bar + ' bar';
/* Gray area: If template literals become too complex, don't use them. */
const foo = `foo ${fn(`${bar}bar`)}`;✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Concatenate strings using template literals */
const foo = `foo ${bar} bar`;
/* Gray area: If template literals become too complex, feel free to concatenate with +. */
const foo = `foo ${fn(bar + 'bar')}`;Use the functional language concepts of JavaScript in favor of the imperative ones, when possible.
Use the correct function for your use case (e.g. .map, .reduce, .filter, .find, .some, .every).
In some cases it makes sense to resort to the imperative for, for example, when performance is of the essence, if you have to iterate over every n-th element or if you want to execute asynchronous actions sequentially.
Be aware of the effects of asynchronicity.
The callback passed to .forEach is invoked for every item of a list sequentially.
If the callback is asynchronous it will still be invoked sequentially, but its asynchronous action will not be awaited before the next invocation, which can lead to unexpected results.
Do not use .forEach if you need sequential invocation or move the parts that have to be executed sequentially up before any asynchronous actions are executed.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use for ... of if you can use .forEach */
for (const item of array) {
...
}
/* Don't use .forEach if you can use .map */
const result = [];
array.forEach(item => {
result.push(item.property);
});✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use .forEach if possible */
array.forEach(item => {
...
});
/* Use .map, if appropriate */
const result = array.map(item => item.property);Use optional parameters, if there is a default value or if it semantically makes sense to omit the parameters when consuming the API.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use explicit `undefined` if the parameter is semantically optional */
function foo(options: Options | undefined) {
...
}✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use optional parameter if the parameter is semantically optional */
function foo(options?: Options) {
...
}
/* Use default parameter if there is a default (making the parameter inherently optional for the consumer) */
function foo(options: Options = {}) {
...
}If a value semantically is not optional prefer using undefined for values that do not exist or are not defined instead of null.
Do not use optional parameters in those cases either, because the function should not be callable without this parameter.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use `null` for non-existent values */
function foo(obj: SomeType | null) {
...
}
/* Don't use optional parameters for non-existent, but not optional values */
function foo(obj?: SomeType) {
...
}✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use `undefined` for non-existent values */
function foo(obj: SomeType | undefined) {
...
}If a value can both be non-existent and intentionally absent and those states are semantically different it may make sense to allow the usage of null.
Those cases should however be rather rare and are more common when calling external APIs, e.g. through HTTP requests.
Consider whether there is a better API design that might avoid this.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use `null` for absence in general */
function foo(obj?: SomeType | null) {
if (obj === null || obj === undefined) {
...
}
}✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use `null` if it semantically makes sense and is different from `undefined` */
function foo(obj: SomeType | null | undefined) {
if (obj === null) {
...
} else if (obj === undefined) {
...
}
}In most cases it is possible to check for truthiness/falsiness instead of explicitly comparing values. This should be used when possible, but carefully considered in cases where falsy values are valid and therefore semantically truthy values, e.g. 0, ''. Therefore, when checking for existence of primitives, don't use truthy/falsy checks. Of course, more fine granular checks should be applied if semantically needed.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use explicit comparison with `undefined` for objects */
if (obj !== undefined) { ... }
/* Don't use truthy/falsy checks for existence of primitives */
function checkIfExist(obj: string | number) {
if (obj) { ... }
}
/* Don't use explicit comparison for array length (or other numbers)*/
if (arr.length !== 0) { ... }
/* Don't use explicit comparison for booleans */
if (isFoo !== false) { ... }
/* Don't use explicit comparison when checking for empty string */
if (someString !== '') { ... }✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use truthy/falsy check for objects */
if (obj) { ... }
/* Use truthy/falsy check for array length (or other numbers)*/
if (arr.length) { ... }
/* Use truthy/falsy for booleans */
if (!isFoo) { ... }
/* Use truthy/falsy check when checking for empty string */
if (someString) { ... }Use 2 spaces for indentation in all code files, unless not possible for some reason. Don't use tabs.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use 4 spaces */
arr.forEach(item => {
····const property = item.property;
});
/* Don't use tabs */
arr.forEach(item => {
const property = item.property;
});✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use 2 spaces */
arr.forEach(item => {
··const property = item.property;
});Add exactly one empty line before and after every function definition.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't add no lines */
function foo() {
...
}
function bar() {
...
}
/* Don't add more than one line */
function foo() {
...
}
function bar() {
...
}✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Add one line */
function foo() {
...
}
function bar() {
...
}API that is exposed publicly, should be fully documented.
TypeDoc comments should start with /**.
Functions that return something should specify the return value with @returns.
Parameters should not have type annotations as those can be inherently retrieved from the TypeScript code.
Documentation comments should have the following structure:
- If necessary, one line for deprecation.
- Description, that can extend over multiple lines.
- If necessary, one line per type parameter.
- One line per parameter.
- If necessary, one line for the description of the return value.
There should be no empty lines in between, except if it is part of the description.
When deprecating public API, this is done through the TypeDoc comments.
The first line of the comment should start with @deprecated followed by a note mentioning since which version this is deprecated (e.g. Since v1.0.0.) and a note of what to use instead (or alternatively that it won't be replaced).
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't leave out from which version on this is deprecated */
/**
* @deprecated Use [[foo]] instead.
*/
/* Don't leave out what to use instead */
/**
* @deprecated Since v1.2.3.
*/✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Add all deprecation information */
/**
* @deprecated Since v1.2.3. Use [[foo]] instead.
*/In JSDoc it is common to specify the types of parameters and type parameters as JavaScript has no types.
In TypeDoc this is not necessary, because TypeScript inherently has types and those should not differ between the implementation and documentation.
A parameter or type parameter line should start with @param or @typeparam, followed by the (type) parameter name, a dash, and the description.
The description should end with a full stop.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use types for the parameters */
/**
* @param param {string} - The description.
*/
/* Don't skip the dash */
/**
* @param param The description.
*/
/* Don't leave out the full stop */
/**
* @param param - The description
*/✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Apply all rules from above */
/**
* @param param - The description.
*/Functions that return something should have an @returns statement in the documentation, followed by a description of the return value.
The description should end with a full stop.
Similar to parameters, return types should not be referenced in the documentation.
For consistency, @return should not be used.
The only exceptions are asynchronous functions that return Promise<void>.
They technically return a promise, which does not need an extra description.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use types in the documentation */
/**
* @returns {string} The description of the return value.
*/
/* Don't use @return */
/**
* @return The description of the return value.
*/
/* Don't leave out the full stop */
/**
* @returns The description of the return value
*/✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Apply all rules from above */
/**
* @returns The description of the return value.
*/Use .spec not .test to differentiate test files.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use .test.ts */
test - file.test.ts;✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use .spec.ts */
test - file.spec.ts;Use describe and it, not test.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use test */
test('Test Suite', () => {
test('Test Case', () => {
...
});
});✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use describe and it */
describe('Test Suite', () => {
it('Test Case', () => {
...
});
});Create test files next to productive code, instead of a separate test directory. This makes it easier to keep the file structures in sync and find tests for a unit of code.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't create a separate test directory */
src / some - unit.ts;
test / some - unit.spec.ts;✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Create test files next to productive files */
src / some - unit.ts;
some - unit.spec.ts;In most cases the more modern async/await notation, makes code a bit easier to read, therefore this is the preferred way.
However, there are some cases where .then is equally as good and potentially even less error-prone - in those cases both options are fine.
This is especially the case if you have multiple asynchronous calls, that have common error handling (check the correct code examples).
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use .then by default */
function getBar() {
return asyncWait().then(foo => foo.bar);
}✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use async/await as a default */
async function getBar() {
return (await asyncWait()).bar;
}
/* Gray area: Use async/await when you have common error handling for multiple asynchronous calls */
async function foo() {
try {
await asyncWait1();
return await asyncWait2(); // If you want to handle the error in foo, this await is necessary!
} catch (err) {
handleError(err);
}
}
/* Gray area: Use .then when you have common error handling for multiple asynchronous calls */
async function foo() {
return asyncWait1()
.then(() => asyncWait2())
.catch(err => handleError(err));
}When handling errors using async/await, be aware of the context of your catch block/invocation.
Invoke .catch when handling an error of one asynchronous call, use try ... catch for multiple asynchronous calls.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Avoid try ... catch for one asynchronous call */
function foo() {
try {
return await asyncWait();
} catch (err) {
handleError(err);
}
}✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use .catch for one asynchronous call */
function foo() {
return asyncWait().catch(err => handleError(err));
}
/* Use try ... catch for multiple asynchronous calls */
async function foo() {
try {
await asyncWait1();
return await asyncWait2(); // If you want to handle the error in foo, this await is necessary!
} catch (err) {
handleError(err);
}
}Use arrow functions for callbacks, unless the callbacks rely on this.
In those cases feel free to use a function.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't use functions in callbacks */
arr.forEach(function(item) {
...
});✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use arrow functions in callbacks */
arr.forEach(item => {
...
});Arrow functions require less boilerplate code than function declarations, especially if the function returns something directly, e.g. in one-liners. For more complex functions, there is no significant difference. Arrow functions cannot be named and therefore have to be assigned to variables - much like function expressions. Function declarations are visually easier to differentiate from other variables than functions assigned to variables. This becomes especially relevant when exposing an API, as many IDEs visualize variables differently than functions, which in turn can improve the quality of autocompletion when used correctly.
An exception to this rule might be simple arrow functions that are only defined within the scope of another function.
❌ Examples of incorrect code:
/* Don't assign arrow functions to variables */
const fn = foo => foo.bar;
/* Don't assign unnamed functions to variables */
const fn = function (foo) {
return foo.bar;
};✅ Examples of correct code:
/* Use function declarations to reference functions by name */
function fn(foo) {
return foo.bar;
}
/* Exception: It is ok to assign arrow functions within the scope of another functions */
function fn(arr) {
const accessorFn = foo => foo.bar;
return arr.map(item => accessorFn(item));
}