microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Extend the "forgot an await" check from 4.3 to do limited AST analysis to cover more cases
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
- Lenguaje dominante
- Go
- Estrellas
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.3k
- Merge medio
- 1 d 19 h
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 117
Descripción
Suggestion
🔍 Search Terms
Promise await async "Did you forget to use 'await'?"
✅ Viability 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, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
- This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.
⭐ Suggestion
The new always-truthy promise checks are amazing!
They're very much like @typescript-eslint's no-misused-promises.
As I was investigating https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/issues/3403, one thing I noticed was that it looks like TypeScript does not do any AST interrogation for this feature - it just inspects the type of the expression.
It'd be great if we could extend this feature to do some AST traversal for common cases (logical expressions and ternaries) so that it can catch more errors.
To clarify what I'm asking for:
- If an
IfStatement's.expressionis aBinaryExpressionand the.operatoris one ofBarBarToken,AmpersandAmpersandToken, orQuestionQuestionToken, then TypeScript should recursively check the.leftand.rightof the node. - if an
IfStatement's.expressionis aConditionalExpression, then TypeScript should recursively check the.whenTrueand.whenFalseof the node.
📃 Motivating Example
declare async function isValid(): Promise<boolean>;
declare const user: {isActive: boolean} | undefined;
// As of TS4.3
if (isValid()) {
// ^^^^^^^^^
// This condition will always return true since this 'Promise<boolean>' appears to always be defined. (2801)
}
// with this proposal, the following would be an error as well:
if (user?.isActive && isValid()) {
// ^^^^^^^^^
}
if (user?.isActive || isValid()) {
// ^^^^^^^^^
}
if (user?.isActive ?? isValid()) {
// ^^^^^^^^^
}
if (user?.isActive ? isValid() : false) {
// ^^^^^^^^^
}
if (user?.isActive ? false : isValid()) {
// ^^^^^^^^^
}
if (
user?.isActive
? someOtherCondition
? isValid()
// ^^^^^^^^^
: false
: isValid()
// ^^^^^^^^^
) {
}
💻 Use Cases
The current approach is a step in the right direction, but it could cover even more cases!
Workaround is to use @typescript-eslint/no-misused-promises which does these in-depth checks.
Guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Línea de trabajo
Comienza rastreando la comprobación existente de Promise always-truthy de TypeScript 4.3 y el diagnóstico 2801 para las expresiones IfStatement. Compara cómo se manejan los nodos BinaryExpression y ConditionalExpression con los ejemplos lógicos y ternarios del issue. Se considerará terminado cuando los casos de Promise mostrados produzcan los diagnósticos previstos sin cambiar la salida en tiempo de ejecución.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Evaluación
- Stack tecnológico
- typescript
- Área
- compilers
- Tipo de issue
- Nueva funcionalidad
- Dificultad
- 4/5
- Tiempo estimado
- 3-5 días
- Estado de actividad
- Estancado
- Claridad
- Bastante claro
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 45/100