Wrong missing-fields diagnostic behavior with union types

[firas-assaad]

How are you using the lua-language-server?

Visual Studio Code Extension (sumneko.lua)

Which OS are you using?

Windows

What is the issue affecting?

Annotations, Type Checking, Diagnostics/Syntax Checking

Expected Behaviour

Building on #2214 (comment), the following code should work without any warnings:

---@class Foo
---@field a number
---@field b number

---@class Bar
---@field aa number
---@field bb number

---@type Foo|Bar
local fb = {
    aa = 1,
    bb = 2
}

---@param foobar Foo|Bar
local function func(foobar) end

func {
    aa = 1,
    bb = 2
}

Actual Behaviour

I get missing field warning when defining the local variable fb, and when calling the function func: "Missing fields: a, b"

It seems to depend on the order of classes in the union. For example, this works (placing Bar before Foo):

---@type Bar|Foo
local fb = {
    aa = 1,
    bb = 2
}

But the following doesn't:

---@type Bar|Foo
local fb = {
    a = 1,
    b = 2
}

Reproduction steps

Paste the sample code in your editor.

Additional Notes

No response

Log File

No response

[9mm]

Is that what is causing this? This showed up today

[sumneko]

---@class Foo
---@field a number
---@field b number

---@class Bar
---@field aa number
---@field bb number

---@type Foo|Bar
local fb = {
    aa = 1,
    bb = 2
} --[[@as Bar]]

---@param foobar Foo|Bar
local function func(foobar) end

func {
    aa = 1,
    bb = 2
} --[[@as Bar]]

Let's bypass it for now using this method. Since true union types are not currently implemented, I'm not sure if it can be fixed in the short term.

[9mm]

@sumneko do you know if this issue is the same thing causing whats in my screenshot? it's for tons of different plugins from my config so im not sure

[sumneko]

@9mm Please provide a complete screenshot, as I cannot confirm from your screenshot whether you have provided these necessary fields.

[9mm]

There's more people here where it happened suddenly: #2214

[sumneko]

This is how it works.

[9mm]

@sumneko so can you give more details? What is the proper way to initialize all these plugins? Are you implying that all these plugins dont properly merge the options into their own config?

[sumneko]

@sumneko so can you give more details? What is the proper way to initialize all these plugins? Are you implying that all these plugins dont properly merge the options into their own config?

I don't know. The parameters of this function require these mandatory fields through annotations, but you did not pass some of them, so a diagnosis was given, that's all. You can consult the person who wrote the annotations for the function to see if missing these fields will cause any problems.

[sumneko]

If you want to further discuss, please open a new issue, as this is not related to the topic of this issue.