microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Automatic `skipDefaultLibCheck` (and potentially `skipLibCheck`)
Dieses Issue hat noch niemand übernommen.
- Vorherrschende Sprache
- Go
- Sterne
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.3k
- Ø Merge
- 2 T. 4 Std.
- Gemergte PRs (30 T.)
- 132
Beschreibung
This issue is adapted from a work item discussed at #25658.
Automatic skipDefaultLibCheck
lib.d.ts is a pretty big file, and it's only going to grow. Realistically, most people don't ever declare symbols that conflict with the global scope, so we made the skipDefaultLibCheck (and also the skipLibCheck flag) for faster compilations.
We can suggest this flag to users, but the truth is that it's not discoverable. It's also often misused, so I want to stop recommending it to people. 😄
It'd be interesting to see if we can get the same results of skipDefaultLibCheck based on the code users have written. Any program that doesn't contribute a global augmentation, or a declaration in the global scope, doesn't really need to have lib.d.ts checked over again.
@mhegazy and I have discussed this, and it sounds like we have the necessary information after the type-checker undergoes symbol-merging. If no symbols ever get merged outside of lib files, we can make the assumption that lib files never need to get checked. But this requires knowing that all lib files have already had symbols merged up front before any other files the compiler is given.
Open Questions
- Is the idea to only type-check symbols which have been merged? Or is it to fall back to the worst-case behavior of checking everything when any symbol has been merged across files?
- If it's the only checking merged entities, does
declare class B extend A {}need to be re-checked ifAhas ever been subsequently merged? How would we keep track of that information? - If it's falling back to the worst-case behavior, does this feature actually help anyone outside of the "Hello world" case?
- If it's the only checking merged entities, does
Cons
- It feels like there are certain interactions we may be overlooking - we will have to be careful about our assumptions in the compiler with this behavior in place.
- Users who edit
lib.d.tswouldn't see erroneous changes in a compiler (so we'd likely need aforceDefaultLibCheck).
Pros
- Running with
skipDefaultLibCheckremoves anywhere between 400-700ms on my machine from a "Hello world" file, so we could expect the same here under this behavior. - Only our team ever needs to run
forceDefaultLibCheck, reducing the cost for all other TypeScript users.
Beitragsleitfaden
Erste Schritte
- Lies das ganze Issue und danach den Beitragsleitfaden des Projekts.
- Schreib ins Issue, dass du es übernimmst — das erspart doppelte Arbeit.
- Forke das Repository und arbeite in einem Branch.
- Öffne einen Pull Request, der die Issue-Nummer nennt.
Rechercherichtung
Lies das Verhalten des Type-Checker beim Zusammenführen von Symbolen und wie lib.d.ts-Dateien vor Benutzerdateien geladen werden. Verfolge das bestehende Verhalten von skipDefaultLibCheck und skipLibCheck. Als abgeschlossen gilt die Definition und Validierung einer sicheren Regel für automatische Prüfungen, einschließlich der offenen Fragen zu zusammengeführten Symbolen und eines forceDefaultLibCheck-Escape-Hatches.
Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.
Bewertung
- Tech-Stack
- typescript
- Bereich
- compilers
- Issue-Typ
- Feature
- Schwierigkeit
- 5/5
- Geschätzter Aufwand
- Über eine Woche
- Aktivitätsstatus
- Veraltet
- Klarheit
- Muss geklärt werden
- Anfängerfreundlichkeit
- 20/100