fix: Mark fields in user_option and user_surround as optional

[thalesmello]

Type linter complains that missing options should be valid in configuration, when in fact they're optional. This marks the fields as optional.

[kylechui]

Just out of curiosity, what linter are you using? I can't seem to be able to replicate this using LuaLS and selene. I'm not opposed to merging this in, but I'm also curious about how the placement of ? matters, i.e. ---@field var? type vs. ---@field var type?. I suspect the former means field not required and the latter means field required, but may be nil, but I would like clarification on that.

[thalesmello]

Hi.

I'm using LuaLS + neodev, and I had warnings in my nvim-surround config that motivated me to try to find a way to make the fields optional.

I'm not a Lua expert, so I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing here. I tried adding the field? question mark, and it got rid of the warnings in the way I was expecting, and it still provides completion, so it at least it works.

I tried to look for official documentation, but I couldn't find any info about optional fields, only optional params, and optional type?. I'm wondering whether field? could be undocumented behavior, of it might even be the same thing as type? considering table.field = nil is how you delete a field in Lua.

Also, would you mind also testing this branch to make sure it also works in another setup?

[kylechui]

Hmm strange, I've also been using neodev. I believe this should be a LuaLS issue, but I've been unable to reproduce it for myself, despite best efforts. I tried adding the ? to keymaps, and see this in my autocomplete:

However, I don't get any warnings/errors about missing fields etc. Have you updated nvim-surround/LuaLS to their latest respective versions?

[gregorias]

The question mark behavior is documented for @param, and it’s also present in the syntax for @field.