microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript

Add compiler option to allow module types to be checked in non module output files

Ouverte
#41,567 26 commentaires 27 réactions 0 personnes assignées Voir sur GitHub

Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.

In Discussion Suggestion
Langage dominant
Go
Étoiles
111k
Forks
14.3k
Merge moyen
1 j 19 h
PR mergées (30 j)
117

Description

Search Terms: import type, export {}

Suggestion

In #41513 and #41562 projects are broken by a design change to always include export {}; in the JS output if import or import type is in the TS source, regardless of whether it is in the JS output. This is a breaking change for a lot of developers and painful to fix (and by fix I mean practically get the output of our TS project to run in browsers, not necessarily adhere to ECMA spec compliance and best possible practice).

However, export {}; considered desirable:

You're free to suggest a new compiler option but this is the intentional behavior.
Originally posted by @RyanCavanaugh in https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/41513#issuecomment-727057724

Please could we have a new compiler option to not force all files that in any way use ES modules to always have to include export {}; in the JS output.

I'm not sure of the best way for this to be applied, but the goal would be

  • Type checking compatible with an ESM project.
  • Output compatible with the current state of module support in browsers.

This could be:

  • A compiler option that causes import type to not implicitly convert output to a module, (my preference because it still avoids any output JS having import without export, which caused #38696) or
  • A compiler option to not add export {}; to all modules, or
  • A //@directive we add to a file to express our intent to not output a module, or
  • A new reference type ... TS-only syntax to signal that we want to use the definition but not output a module

Whatever is easiest to code and causes least friction/confusion for the community.

Use Cases

I have a large TS project that uses numerous web workers, a service worker and web components that load side effects.

In the first two cases including export {}; breaks the resulting JS, as these workers are not modules and are not intended to produce module loaded JS output.

In the case of side effect web components no export is expected (they use customElements.define) so it's just wasted bytes, but it doesn't break anything. Across a project with a lot of components the many export {}; that will never be referenced by anything adds up.

In addition during migration between different reference types it may be extremely beneficial to not strictly enforce adherence to one type or the other, at least while not in production. Any modules = all must be modules effectively makes this migration harder, even if it is a sound best practice.

Examples

I have a model MyModel.d.ts.

In worker.ts I want TS to check my code against this model:

import type MyModel from './MyModel';
const test: MyModel = {};
test.propertyInModel = 1; // works and has intellisense
// test.propertyNotInModel = 1; throws compile error!

I want to use the JS output this with a worker in another file:

const worker = new Worker('path/worker.js');

This worked in 3.8, but fails in 4.0 due to #41562

Checklist

My suggestion meets these guidelines:

  • This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code (it would fix a lot of projects broken by 4.0)
  • This wouldn't change the runtime behaviour of existing JavaScript code (it would be opt-in)
  • 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.) (we're removing additional content that wasn't in 3.8)
  • This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals. (particularly 4, 7 and 11)

Guide de contribution

Ouvrir le guide de contribution

Par où commencer

  1. Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
  2. Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez — cela évite que deux personnes fassent le même travail.
  3. Forkez le dépôt et travaillez sur une branche.
  4. Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.

Piste de recherche

Aucun fichier d’implémentation ni test n’est indiqué. Commencez par lire les issues associées #41513 et #41562 ainsi que la discussion ici, puis suivez la façon dont import type et export {} influencent la classification des modules et le JavaScript généré. Le travail est considéré comme terminé lorsqu’un comportement opt-in clairement défini préserve la vérification de types compatible avec ESM tout en permettant une sortie qui ne soit pas un module, avec une couverture pour les cas de worker et de web component décrits.

Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.

Évaluation

Stack technique
typescript
Domaine
compilers
Type d'issue
Fonctionnalité
Difficulté
5/5
Temps estimé
Plus d'une semaine
Activité
À l'abandon
Clarté
Plutôt claire
Accessibilité débutants
25/100

Recevez les nouvelles issues par e-mail

Un résumé court des issues GitHub adaptées aux débutants.