microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Literal Comparison for Conditional Types
まだ誰も着手していません。
- 主要言語
- Go
- スター
- 111k
- フォーク
- 14.3k
- 平均マージ
- 2日 4時間
- マージ済み PR(30日)
- 132
説明
Search Terms
compare type to value literal, conditional type literals, type is literal, complex schemas
Suggestion
The ability to compare a type against an example of that type, for use in complex type aliases and interfaces.
Use Cases
When designing a complex schema for an object, the actual fields contained by the object can branch in many different ways.
Of course, it's possible to approach the problem by using nullable types for fields that are not present in all cases. This results in a readable type in the error inspection window, but lots of unnecessarily defensive code that would have been solved by a fully typed schema.
It's also possible to create a discriminated union consisting of every branch--but what if you have a lot of branches? It becomes undesirably repetitive and the error inspection window is a wall of text.
Examples
Take for example, the type of a Pipeline:
type Action = 'Data Selection' | 'Data Cleanup' | 'Train' | 'Store' | 'Deploy'
type Status = 'running' | 'finished' | 'error'
type PipelineStep = {
name: Action
status: Status
tags: Array<string>
// `never` actually always results in a type check error right now
message: PipelineStep['status'] is 'Error' ? string : never
path: PipelineStep['name'] is 'Data Selection' | 'Store' ? string : never
trainingID: PipelineStep['name'] is 'Train' ? string : never
endpoint: PipelineStep['name'] is 'Deploy' ? string : never
}
Contrasted with the current syntax and discriminated unions:
type PipelineStep = {
name: Action
status: Exclude<Status, 'Error'>
tags: Array<String>
} | {
name: Action
status: 'Error'
tags: Array<string>
message: string
} | // I give up
The number of branches is multiplicative in nature. In this case, the most complex schema could have a maximum of 6 (Actions) x 3 (Status) possible branches.
After optimization, it becomes:
type StepStatus = {
status: Exclude<Status, 'Error'>
} | {
status: 'Error'
message: string
}
type DataSelectionStep = {
name: 'Data Selection'
path: string
}
type TrainingStep = {
name: 'Training'
trainingID: string
}
type StoreStep = {
name: 'Store'
path: string
}
type DeployStep = {
name: 'Deploy'
endpoint: string
}
type PipelineStep = (DataSelectionStep | TrainingStep | StoreStep | DeployStep | {
name: Exclude<Action, 'Training' | 'Data Selection' | 'Store' | 'Deploy'>
}) & StepStatus & {
tags: Array<String>
}
which isn't really much better...
Checklist
My suggestion meets these guidelines:
- This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
- 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.
コントリビューションガイド
はじめの一歩
- issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
- 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
- リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
- issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。
調査の方向性
ファイル、テスト、エントリポイントは指定されていません。まず、条件型を担当する TypeScript の型チェッカー領域を確認し、提案を既存の判別共用体の動作と比較してください。完了の条件は、生成される JavaScript を変更せずに例を処理できる、型とリテラルを比較するサポートされた構文が実現されることです。
索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。
評価
- 技術スタック
- typescript
- 領域
- compilers
- issue の種類
- 機能追加
- 難易度
- 5/5
- 見積もり時間
- 1週間以上
- 活発さ
- 停滞
- 明瞭さ
- おおむね明確
- 初心者へのやさしさ
- 25/100