microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Improve Type guards to correctly work with for-of loops
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.3k
- Avg merge
- 2d 4h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 132
Description
Search Terms
for-of, Type Guard
Suggestion
At the moment a paradigm of call-Parameter-Testing I apply works well in case of one parameter, but if I want to shorten the testing of multiple parameters using a for-of loop the type assertion fails.
Use Cases
Correct type guarding of multiple parameters which are supposed to be the same type but to be handled differently
Examples
type generalObj<T> = {
value: T,
};
type numObj = generalObj<number>
const isNumObj = (testObj: generalObj<any>): testObj is numObj => {
//some logic here...
return true;
}
const numConsumer = (param: numObj) => param;
const shouldWork = (shouldBeNumObj: generalObj<number | string>) => {
for (const c of [shouldBeNumObj]) {
if (!isNumObj(c)) {
return console.error('no numObj')
}
}
// error here despite the right type ensured
numConsumer(shouldBeNumObj);
}
const doesWork = (shouldBeNumObj: generalObj<number | string>) => {
if (!isNumObj(shouldBeNumObj)) {
return console.error('no numObj')
}
numConsumer(shouldBeNumObj);
}
const shouldWork2 = (shouldBeNumObj: Array<generalObj<number | string>>) => {
for (const c of shouldBeNumObj) {
if (!isNumObj(c)) {
return console.error('no numObj')
}
}
numConsumer(shouldBeNumObj[0]);
}
const baseTypeNumConsumer = (param: number) => param;
// curtesy of @nmain
const shouldWork3 = (shouldBeNum: string | number) => {
for (const v of [shouldBeNum]) {
if (typeof v !== "number") {
return;
}
}
baseTypeNumConsumer(shouldBeNum); // compiler error, but should be valid
}
const stringConsumer = (param: generalObj<string>) => param;
const couldBreakCode = (anyObjS: Array<generalObj<any>>) => {
for (const c of anyObjS) {
if (!isNumObj(c)) {
return console.error('no numObj')
}
}
stringConsumer(anyObjS[0])
}
const becauseThisFails = (anyObj: generalObj<any>) => {
if (!isNumObj(anyObj)) {
return console.error('no numObj')
}
stringConsumer(anyObj);
}
Checklist
My suggestion meets these guidelines:
- This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
- Could break compilation of already error-prone code where Type testing was disabled with
any
- Could break compilation of already error-prone code where Type testing was disabled with
- This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
- This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
- This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, etc.)
- This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No source files or tests are named. Start by reproducing the TypeScript examples in the issue and tracing how control-flow narrowing handles variables tested through a for-of loop. Done means the valid narrowing cases compile while the shown any-based case does not become unsound.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- typescript
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100