microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Extend the "forgot an await" check from 4.3 to do limited AST analysis to cover more cases
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
- Lingua principale
- Go
- Stelle
- 111k
- Fork
- 14.3k
- Merge medio
- 2g 4h
- PR unite (30g)
- 132
Descrizione
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.
Guida per i contributori
Apri la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Direzione di ricerca
Inizia tracciando il controllo esistente di Promise always-truthy di TypeScript 4.3 e la diagnostica 2801 per le espressioni IfStatement. Confronta la gestione dei nodi BinaryExpression e ConditionalExpression con gli esempi logici e ternari nell’issue. Il lavoro è completato quando i casi Promise mostrati producono le diagnostiche previste senza modificare l’output a runtime.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Valutazione
- Stack tecnologico
- typescript
- Ambito
- compilers
- Tipo di issue
- Funzionalità
- Difficoltà
- 4/5
- Tempo stimato
- 3-5 giorni
- Stato di attività
- Ferma
- Chiarezza
- Abbastanza chiara
- Idoneità per principianti
- 45/100