Add object shape inference to TypeScript mode (already in JSDoc+JavaScript mode)

Abierto
#57,306 3 comentarios 3 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
25/100
Tipo de issue
Nueva funcionalidad
Claridad
Bastante claro
Estado de actividad
Estancado
Stack tecnológico
javascript, typescript
Área
compilers

Línea de trabajo

Comienza comparando el comportamiento mostrado de JavaScript bajo //@ts-check o checkJs con el ejemplo equivalente en .ts. Determina cómo debería TypeScript inferir las propiedades asignadas después de {} y cómo una opción opcional de tsconfig controlaría este comportamiento. Se considera terminado cuando el modo TypeScript admite la inferencia de la forma de objeto solicitada sin cambiar el JavaScript emitido.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

Awaiting More Feedback Suggestion
🔍 Search Terms

object inference through property assignment

✅ Viability Checklist
⭐ Suggestion

So, whilst adding in JSDoc + //@ts-check to an existing project, I came across a type-inference feature that as far as I know, only exists in type-checked JavaScript.

In JavaScript, you can write a function like this:

// somefile.js
export function makeObject() {
  const foo = {};
  foo.a = 1;
  foo.b = '2';
  return foo;
}

However, what astonished me is that this type inference does not break when you add // @ts-check to the file. foo is properly typed based on assignment, and no error is thrown.

The Feature Request - Add this existing feature to .ts files (via a tsconfig flag)

// somefile.ts
export function makeObject() {
  const foo = {};
  foo.a = 1;
  foo.b = '2';
  return foo; // has a final shape of { a: number, b: string }, the same as JS does
}

TypeScript documentation, of course, says you can never do this, that object types cannot be inferred from assignment, and must instead either be typed up-front or, when inferred, inferred only by defining all the properties in the object. However, I've found there are lots of times when you want to infer an object's shape via assignment of the initial (function) scope (which is what is already supported in TS-checked JavaScript.

📃 Motivating Example

Mostly this would improve DX. I've had a number of situations where working JavaScript code had to be re-written the "TypeScript way" in order to get type inference. In many cases, migrating from JS to TS is a matter of adding types. However, in the case of objects, most legacy code "builds up" objects through assignment.

So, say you have this simple example, similar to something I've encountered often in legacy codebases:

export function makeObject() {
  const foo = {};
  foo.a = 1;
  foo.b = '2';
  return foo;
}

Now, immediately TypeScript will error at foo.a, because it says Property 'a' does not exist on type '{}'

Okay, so next the new TypeScript developer says, "alright, I'll add types to this object".

export function makeObject() {
  const foo: { a: number, b: string } = {};
  foo.a = 1;
  foo.b = '2';
  return foo;
}

This is, of course, wrong again. TypeScript says: Type '{}' is missing the following properties from type '{ a: number; b: string; }': a, b

But the developer is going to add them! In this case, if you don't want to massively refactor, you're left with a few bad options.

export function makeObject() {
  const foo = {} as { a: number, b: string };
  foo.a = 1;
  foo.b = '2';
  return foo;
}

This satisfies the types but it teaches a new TS developer to lean on as. Some teams will disallow / strongly discourage as as part of their linting settings because of the danger it implies.

Another option is this:

export function makeObject() {
  const foo: { a?: number, b?: string } = {};
  foo.a = 1;
  foo.b = '2';
  return foo as Required<typeof foo>;
}

Once again, we're leaning on string type assertion and using as.

The Obvious Question

Okay, so a seasoned / opinionated TS developer would say, "Why not just add a & b to the object definition"? Yes, in this very simple case, that's not much refactoring, but in codebases I've worked with, simply moving all the individual property assignments to the initial object declaration is a massive amount of refactoring. But even more importantly, IMO, better questions are:

  1. Should migrating to TypeScript force massive refactoring if the inference capabilities are already there?
  2. Is TypeScript "JavaScript + types"? Or is it a different language with specifically-omitted JavaScript patterns? Ideally, IMO, whatever types we can infer in a .js file with JS patterns, we should be able to infer in a .ts file with TS patterns.

(Of course, maybe this feature already exists in TypeScript with some TSConfig pattern that I couldn't find?)

💻 Use Cases
  1. What do you want to use this for?
    Every legacy code base I encounter.

  2. What shortcomings exist with current approaches?
    Blunt-force type-assertions or massive refactoring

  3. What workarounds are you using in the meantime?
    Both of the options from #2 OR simply using JSDoc + // @ts-check or "checkJs": true. I'm finding that in many cases, migrating from JS to TS is just too painful and time-consuming for some codebases because of object / constructor handling alone.

Lenguaje dominante
Go
Estrellas
111k
Forks
14.4k
Merge medio
1 d 19 h
PR fusionados (30 d)
117

Guía de contribución

Abrir la guía de contribución

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de microsoft/TypeScript

Todos los issues de microsoft/TypeScript

Issues similares

Más issues de Go

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.