Function adding property type error

[zclsx]

🔎 Search Terms

Function addition attribute

🕗 Version & Regression Information

No solution is provided in typescript

⏯ Playground Link

No response

💻 Code

interface ReactiveEffectRunner<T = any> {
  (): T;
  effect: ReactiveEffect;
}

  const runner = _effect.run.bind(_effect) as ReactiveEffectRunner;

  runner.effect = _effect;

🙁 Actual behavior

const runner:ReactiveEffectRunner = _effect.run.bind(_effect);

When we use type annotations this way, we get an error: type "() => Missing attribute "effect" in any" but type "ReactiveEffectRunner< any>" This property is required in.

🙂 Expected behavior

How do we assign properties to a function if we don't use as to make assertions？

I needed typescript to provide a solution for us to solve the problem of incorrect function assignment types, instead of using crude assertions to solve it. Because typescript can put forward solutions to solve problems, it will make the code more elegant. Looking forward to your reply, thank you! 🙏

### Tasks

[jcalz]

What is _effect? Where's the playground link? What, specifically, makes you think that this is a bug in the language instead of a question about how to do something (which would belong more on Stack Overflow or the TS Discord)?

[Andy-gs]

What is _effect? Where's the playground link? What, specifically, makes you think that this is a bug in the language instead of a question about how to do something (which would belong more on Stack Overflow or the TS Discord)?
This is what the vue3 code does, js is acceptable for assigning attributes to functions, but ts I didn't find out how to define the type for the runner so that it can be used as a function and be able to be assigned attributes, the simple brute force as is itself a forced conversion of the type, I don't see this as a bug, but rather an unimplemented feature

[Andy-gs]

What is _effect? Where's the playground link? What, specifically, makes you think that this is a bug in the language instead of a question about how to do something (which would belong more on Stack Overflow or the TS Discord)?

https://github.com/vuejs/core/blob/main/packages/reactivity/src/effect.ts

[Andy-gs]

What is _effect? Where's the playground link? What, specifically, makes you think that this is a bug in the language instead of a question about how to do something (which would belong more on Stack Overflow or the TS Discord)?
Beginning of row 180

[Andy-gs]

What is _effect? Where's the playground link? What, specifically, makes you think that this is a bug in the language instead of a question about how to do something (which would belong more on Stack Overflow or the TS Discord)?
We can only re-assert run as a 'ReavtiveEffectRunner' type, effect, which the runner is able to call directly, and runner.effect, which is also able to get the effect function

[jcalz]

• There's a different template for feature requests, this was filed as a bug report.
• All relevant code should ideally be contained here in the issue and not only available at a link
• You might be using some other UI to interact with this issue but I suggest you don't keep adding new comments each time you have something to say if nobody has posted an intervening comment. You can edit existing comments as well.
• If you blockquote something you should make sure that the response isn't included in the quote or it's hard for others to see where the quote ends and your response begins.

[whzx5byb]

How do we assign properties to a function if we don't use as to make assertions？

I'd suggest using Object.assign instead of assign properties directly. In this way the code you posted in #55303 (comment) could be written as:

-  const runner = _effect.run.bind(_effect) as ReactiveEffectRunner
-  runner.effect = _effect
-  return runner
+  return Object.assign(_effect.run.bind(_effect), { effect: _effect })

[zclsx]

How do we assign properties to a function if we don't use as to make assertions？

I'd suggest using Object.assign instead of assign properties directly. In this way the code you posted in #55303 (comment) could be written as:

-  const runner = _effect.run.bind(_effect) as ReactiveEffectRunner
-  runner.effect = _effect
-  return runner
+  return Object.assign(_effect.run.bind(_effect), { effect: _effect })

First of all, thank you for your reply above, so that I can solve the problem in this way.

Although this solves the problem at hand, after assigning a value to the runner and before assigning an effect, so that you can't use Object. assign for the merge operation, the function return run function will result in the unit test not being passed.I don't seem to find a way to solve this problem directly in typescript, but instead do other parts of the code to solve the types in the ts part.

But under certain conditions I have to assign the two separately, so this way the merge operation doesn't work, ts doesn't provide a direct solution for this, which confuses me, I appreciate your response, thanks a lot!

[Andy-gs]

How do we assign properties to a function if we don't use as to make assertions？

I'd suggest using Object.assign instead of assign properties directly. In this way the code you posted in #55303 (comment) could be written as:

-  const runner = _effect.run.bind(_effect) as ReactiveEffectRunner
-  runner.effect = _effect
-  return runner
+  return Object.assign(_effect.run.bind(_effect), { effect: _effect })

I also endorse zclsx's statement

[fatcerberus]

But under certain conditions I have to assign the two separately

In that case the error message is correct: the type says that the property always exists, but there’s an observable period of time where it’s missing. That’s a real type violation, and it makes sense that you have to write a type assertion to acknowledge it.

[Andy-gs]

But under certain conditions I have to assign the two separately

In that case the error message is correct: the type says that the property always exists, but there’s an observable period of time where it’s missing. That’s a real type violation, and it makes sense that you have to write a type assertion to acknowledge it.

So why is it that objects are guaranteed to be of the correct type when they are subsequently supplemented with relevant attributes, but functions are not guaranteed to be of the correct type when they are subsequently supplemented with attributes?

I'm curious. thanks

[fatcerberus]

I don’t know where you got that idea. Leaving properties off of an object to be assigned later is an error too.

[Andy-gs]

I don’t know where you got that idea. Leaving properties off of an object to be assigned later is an error too.

I'm sorry, it's just me, but I need to do some logical processing between two assignment operations, how do I get there in this case without using assertions?

type Effect = () => void
interface Runner {
    (): void
    effect: Effect
}

function run() {
    console.log('run');
}

function effect() {
    console.log('effect');
}

// Using function returns can cause unit tests to fail
// const runner: Runner = () => run  
const runner: Runner = run
//Logic handling between run and effect
runner.effect = effect

[whzx5byb]

@Andy-gs

You can always use Object.assign to perform the assignment of expando properties to a function. But unfortunately, since #40562 or #42253 has not been implemented, Object.assign cannot be used as an assertion function to reflect the type change of the target.

Instead, you could write a custom function as a workaround.

function assign<T extends {}, U>(target: T, source: U): asserts target is T & U {
    Object.assign(target, source);
}

const runner = run
//Logic handling between run and effect
assign(runner, { effect });

runner;
// ^? const runner: (() => void) & { effect: () => void; }

[Andy-gs]

@Andy-gs

You can always use Object.assign to perform the assignment of expando properties to a function. But unfortunately, since #40562 or #42253 has not been implemented, Object.assign cannot be used as an assertion function to reflect the type change of the target.

Instead, you could write a custom function as a workaround.

function assign<T extends {}, U>(target: T, source: U): asserts target is T & U {
    Object.assign(target, source);
}

const runner = run
//Logic handling between run and effect
assign(runner, { effect });

runner;
// ^? const runner: (() => void) & { effect: () => void; }

SuperCool
SuperCool
SuperCool
Niubi（Chinese）
牛逼

[zclsx]

@Andy-gs

You can always use Object.assign to perform the assignment of expando properties to a function. But unfortunately, since #40562 or #42253 has not been implemented, Object.assign cannot be used as an assertion function to reflect the type change of the target.

Instead, you could write a custom function as a workaround.

function assign<T extends {}, U>(target: T, source: U): asserts target is T & U {
    Object.assign(target, source);
}

const runner = run
//Logic handling between run and effect
assign(runner, { effect });

runner;
// ^? const runner: (() => void) & { effect: () => void; }

Thank you for your guidance! This is crazy! pretty cool

[Andy-gs]

@Andy-gs

You can always use Object.assign to perform the assignment of expando properties to a function. But unfortunately, since #40562 or #42253 has not been implemented, Object.assign cannot be used as an assertion function to reflect the type change of the target.

Instead, you could write a custom function as a workaround.

function assign<T extends {}, U>(target: T, source: U): asserts target is T & U {
    Object.assign(target, source);
}

const runner = run
//Logic handling between run and effect
assign(runner, { effect });

runner;
// ^? const runner: (() => void) & { effect: () => void; }

ts No plans to implement this feature?

[typescript-bot]

This issue has been marked as "Question" and has seen no recent activity. It has been automatically closed for house-keeping purposes.