Supporting exactOptionalPropertyTypes #498
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
`signal` key has defined its key as optional, not necessarily the value even though this happens implicitly. No key means no value which translates to `undefined`:
```ts
signal?: AbortSignal | null;
```
To support exactOptionalPropertyTypes it would have to be defined as:
```ts
signal?: AbortSignal | null | undefined;
```
While you could say the key isn't optional (removing ?), which then requires an explicit undefined value:
```ts
signal: AbortSignal | null | undefined;
```
That would require an explicit undefined being passed.
Given this key is part of TS definitions and module augmentation is overkill, just "oring" from undefined to an expected value (in this case null) solves the problem.
Replacing: #457
|
@seivan thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
signalkey has defined its key as optional, not necessarily the value even though this happens implicitly. No key means no value which translates toundefined:To support exactOptionalPropertyTypes it would have to be defined as:
While you could say the key isn't optional (removing ?), which then requires an explicit undefined value:
That would require an explicit undefined being passed, which might break existing implementations, but also, it can't be changed here.
Given this key is part of TS definitions and module augmentation is overkill, just "oring" from undefined to an expected value (in this case null) solves the problem.
Replacing: #457