Skip to content

Back out from reducing template literal types with no extra texts too eagerly #58703

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Andarist
Copy link
Contributor

fixes #58687

@typescript-bot typescript-bot added the For Milestone Bug PRs that fix a bug with a specific milestone label May 29, 2024
@@ -26217,6 +26218,10 @@ export function createTypeChecker(host: TypeCheckerHost): TypeChecker {
}

function inferToTemplateLiteralType(source: Type, target: TemplateLiteralType) {
if (isTemplateLiteralTypeWithSinglePlaceholderAndNoExtraTexts(source) && isTemplateLiteralTypeWithSinglePlaceholderAndNoExtraTexts(target)) {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm still considering if this shouldn't have some extra rules on top of this to be completely safe

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not understanding why this needs to be here. After reverting #55371 the following works just fine:

declare function bar<T extends string>(x: `${T}`): T;

function baz<U extends string>(x: `${U}`) {
    return bar(x);  // Infers U

}

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, I confused myself which one of those errored after reverting #55371:

interface TypeMap {
    a: 'A'
    b: 'B'
}

declare const f: <T extends 'a' | 'b'>(x: `${T}`) => TypeMap[T];

type F1 = <T extends 'a' | 'b'>(x: `${T}`) => TypeMap[T];
const f1: F1 = f;  // Ok

type F2 = <T extends 'a' | 'b'>(x: `${T}`) => TypeMap[`${T}`];
const f2: F2 = f;  // Error, T is not assignable to `${T}`

Then I just knew where I could try to improve inference for this as I knew that in here `${T}` was being inferred for T based on `${T}` source and `${T}` target as that originally created an issue further down the road.

i agree, this PR is completely redundant 🤦‍♂️ this is what I get for jumping too quickly between work, this, and the kids

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, I know the feeling. Your efforts are always appreciated!

type F1 = <T1 extends "a" | "b">(x: `${T1}`) => TypeMap[T1];
const f1: F1 = f;
type F2 = <T2 extends 'a' | 'b'>(x: `${T2}`) => TypeMap[`${T2}`]
const f2: F2 = f
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

before #55371 this was OK but the assignment above was not. The one above being an error was really spooky as both functions (source and the target there) were syntactically identical.

This line here doesn't come from the user report per se but rather it was created in the process of analyzing the error reported previously for that first assignment (since the error mentioned template literal type at that changed position in the indexed access).

I think it still might be possible to fix this case here, string like index types in the indexed accesses are stringified:

enum E { a = "a" }
type Foo = { [E.a]: 1 } // type Foo = { a: 1; }

So it feels like this fact could be leveraged to simplify such indexed access types like here

&& !types[0].symbol?.declarations?.some(d => d.parent.kind === SyntaxKind.InferType)
&& isTypeAssignableTo(types[0], stringType)
) {
if (texts.length === 2 && texts[0] === "" && texts[1] === "" && (types[0].flags & TypeFlags.StringMapping)) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the reasoning for keeping the reduction around for string mapping types? Does it fix a known issue?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no, it just keeps the behavior from #55371 as this one seems like a safe reduction and i thought that it might be worth avoiding a new type identity in a case like this

@gabritto
Copy link
Member

@typescript-bot pack this

@typescript-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

typescript-bot commented May 29, 2024

Starting jobs; this comment will be updated as builds start and complete.

Command Status Results
pack this ✅ Started ✅ Results

@typescript-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

typescript-bot commented May 29, 2024

Hey @gabritto, I've packed this into an installable tgz. You can install it for testing by referencing it in your package.json like so:

{
    "devDependencies": {
        "typescript": "https://typescript.visualstudio.com/cf7ac146-d525-443c-b23c-0d58337efebc/_apis/build/builds/161980/artifacts?artifactName=tgz&fileId=86CFC79DB1B3075B303FC2ECF3E214166144F62CDFF52640B4CAF8573A9BE41502&fileName=/typescript-5.5.0-insiders.20240529.tgz"
    }
}

and then running npm install.


There is also a playground for this build and an npm module you can use via "typescript": "npm:@typescript-deploys/[email protected]".;

@Andarist Andarist closed this May 30, 2024
@Andarist Andarist deleted the fix/58687 branch May 30, 2024 14:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
For Milestone Bug PRs that fix a bug with a specific milestone
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Template literal type reduction is inconsistent (regression in 5.5-beta)
4 participants