fix(semantic/jsdoc): inline tags like {@link} break jsdoc parsing

[Boshen]

Summary

• find_type_range() searched for the first {...} pair anywhere in the tag body, so {@link Type} or {} in descriptions were incorrectly treated as type annotations, causing false "missing param description" lint errors
• Now only matches {...} at the start of the tag body (after whitespace), matching the JSDoc spec that type annotations must come first

Closes #18724

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes a bug in JSDoc parsing where inline tags like {@link Type} and curly braces in descriptions were incorrectly treated as type annotations, causing false "missing param description" lint errors.

Changes:

• Modified find_type_range() to only match {...} at the start of tag body (after whitespace), per JSDoc spec
• Updated test expectations to correctly return None for braces not at the beginning
• Added comprehensive test cases for inline tags and braces in descriptions

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
crates/oxc_semantic/src/jsdoc/parser/utils.rs	Fixed find_type_range() to only match type annotations at start of string; added test cases for inline tags
crates/oxc_semantic/src/jsdoc/parser/jsdoc_tag.rs	Updated test expectations and added integration tests for @param tags with inline tags and braces

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 46 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 3 skipped benchmarks¹

---

_{Comparing fix/jsdoc-inline-tags-type-parsing (5d87bd8) with main (e3609e3)²}

Footnotes

1. 3 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (b249ee2) during the generation of this report, so e3609e3 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[leaysgur]

I'm concerned that Some became None in the test case, but honestly, I don't know the correct answer...

However, if it doesn't affect other existing tests (especially in linter), then it probably aligns with general use cases.

[leaysgur]

Merge activity

• Feb 6, 4:53 AM UTC: The merge label '0-merge' was detected. This PR will be added to the Graphite merge queue once it meets the requirements.
• Feb 6, 4:53 AM UTC: leaysgur added this pull request to the Graphite merge queue.
• Feb 6, 4:59 AM UTC: Merged by the Graphite merge queue.