This change was an attempt to improve the way in which angular detects "implicit" constructor functions. Unfortunately I've hit a wall with respect to the edge case I describe above, where the new routine incorrectly determines the parameters of the Foo type in this code to be string, number.

@Injectable()
class BaseClass {
    constructor (public data1: string, public data2: number) {
    }
}

class Foo extends BaseClass {
    constructor () {
        super('hello');
    }
}

I'm issuing this PR just to request feedback on the approach - perhaps someone else can see a way to make this approach work? Ideally we could have a check to determine if the first constructor function in the chain is @Injectable (or otherwise annotated) and bail early if it is not. This is easy to do with the tsickle codegen however I don't think enough metadata is available for tsc generated code.

I've made some changes to try and work around the edge case described above - specifically I've added the _isInjectable check, which tries to determine if a type has been prepared for injection in some way before trying to determine the parameter list.

It does this by checking that the type constructor...

• has es5 attributes/parameters properties, or
• has tsickle properties, or
• has been marked up with an Angular attribute (@Injectable, @Component etc)

Only one change to the tests had to be made to mark up a test subclass with an @ClassDecorator attribute (simulating @Injectable).

Because fixing the problem here is non-trivial I've also opened an issue on ng-packagr around its codegen: ng-packagr/ng-packagr#679

@deadalusai Thanks for the fix. Can you force the ci/circleci to re-run, I think it may be flake.

I think this can be merged after v6.0.0 is out.

Also closes #13211

@trotyl @mhevery do you consider this PR still relevant and viable? I no longer have an environment available to easily re-test this code with the latest master, but I'm willing to build out an environment if need be.

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify it.

What to do if you already signed the CLA

Individual signers

• It's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address on your commit. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.

Corporate signers

• Your company has a Point of Contact who decides which employees are authorized to participate. Ask your POC to be added to the group of authorized contributors. If you don't know who your Point of Contact is, direct the Google project maintainer to go/cla#troubleshoot (Public version).
• The email used to register you as an authorized contributor must be the email used for the Git commit. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• The email used to register you as an authorized contributor must also be attached to your GitHub account.

Closing as abandoned

This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity.
Please file a new issue if you are encountering a similar or related problem.

Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy.

_{This action has been performed automatically by a bot.}