microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Unable to invoke an arrow function with an assertion predicate
Dieses Issue hat noch niemand übernommen.
- Vorherrschende Sprache
- Go
- Sterne
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.4k
- Ø Merge
- 1 T. 19 Std.
- Gemergte PRs (30 T.)
- 117
Beschreibung
🔎 Search Terms
arrow function, assertion, predicate, 2775
🕗 Version & Regression Information
- This is the behavior in every version I tried
⏯ Playground Link
💻 Code
type A = { x: number };
type B = A & { y: number };
const foo = (a: A): asserts a is B => {
if ((a as B).y !== 0) throw TypeError();
return undefined;
};
export const main = () => {
const a: A = { x: 1 };
// TypeError: Assertions require every name in the call target to be declared with an explicit type annotation.(2775)
foo(a);
};
🙁 Actual behavior
It looks like they goal of https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/pull/45952 was for assertion predicates to work for arrow functions, but this only handles the JSDoc case, which I assume TS treats as equivalent to directly annotating the entire function at once, i.e.:
const foo: (a: A) => asserts a is B = (a) => {};
For functions with more named parameters, this annotation style quickly becomes unwieldy. There is no semantic difference between this annotation or the style from the repro:
const foo = (a: A): asserts a is B => {};
Is it possible to identify a top-level arrow function like this assigned to a const variable with annotated parameters and return as having an "explicit type," which was defined as the standard for being able to use an assertion predicate like this in @ahejlsberg's initial PR (https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/pull/32695)?
This style is increasingly common, and I think many developers (my self included) simply write a function like this, see it doesn't work, then choose not to use the feature, not knowing something like moving the annotation to the variable itself could have an effect.
🙂 Expected behavior
(see above)
Additional information about the issue
No response
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
Beginne mit der Reproduktion im TypeScript Playground und vergleiche die Behandlung von Assertion-Prädikaten in Pfeilfunktionen mit dem in den PRs #45952 und #32695 beschriebenen Verhalten. Verfolge die Anforderung eines expliziten Typs für die an const gebundene Pfeilfunktion und validiere anschließend das erwartete Verhalten mit einem fokussierten Compiler-Test, der das bereitgestellte Beispiel abdeckt.
Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.
Bewertung
- Tech-Stack
- typescript
- Bereich
- compilers
- Issue-Typ
- Bug
- Schwierigkeit
- 4/5
- Geschätzter Aufwand
- 3-5 Tage
- Aktivitätsstatus
- Veraltet
- Klarheit
- Größtenteils klar
- Anfängerfreundlichkeit
- 35/100