Quick fix for 'unions can't be used in index signatures, use a mapped object type instead'

[DanielRosenwasser]

The following code:

type K = "foo" | "bar";

interface SomeType {
    [prop: K]: any;
}

Gives this error message:

An index signature parameter type cannot be a union type. Consider using a mapped object type instead.

Nobody knows what mapped object types are, so let's give them a quick fix that

• Switches the index signature to a mapped type
• Moves other members to a separate object type that gets combined with an intersection type
• Changes the containing object type to a type alias if the containing object type is an interface
• Intersects with all the extends clauses if the containing object type is an interface and has any extends clauses

[dannycochran]

Nobody knows what mapped object types are, so let's give them a quick fix that

+1, just came here because I was expecting 2.9 to support unions as index signatures per your example code. I think this has been a long desired feature: #5683, #16760, etc..

[mattbasta]

You can do this:

type Foo = 'a' | 'b';
type Bar = {[key in Foo]: any};

Though Bar has no index signature (i.e., you can't then do (obj as Bar)[value as Foo]).

Edit: Though if you could make the caveat a non-issue, I'd be eternally grateful!

[Kingwl]

i'd like to work on this 😆

[Kingwl]

Moves other members to a separate object type that gets combined with an intersection type

what should we do if containing object type is an class?
I can only imagine that it is an interface

so what should follow code do after quickfix?

type K = "1" | "2"

class SomeType {
    a = 1;
    [prop: K]: any;
}

[mhegazy]

so what should follow code do after quickfix?

I would say this should not be fixable..

[dannycochran]

@mhegazy I'm using 3.0.0-rc and still getting the same error as originally posted. Is this expected?

[mhegazy]

I'm using 3.0.0-rc and still getting the same error as originally posted. Is this expected?

yes. the error is correct. this issue was tracking adding a quick fix for it, that is the light pulp next to the error message.

[ThaJay]

no code actions available with 2.9.1 and vscode

[ghost]

@ThaJay We won't backport this feature, try setting up a newer version.

[ThaJay]

Obviously. I'm sorry for not checking the timeline first, just assumed it would be new enough. New to ts. Will check with version 3.

[maicWorkGithub]

how to describe this:

function createRequestTypes(base){
  return ['REQUEST', 'SUCCESS', 'FAILURE'].reduce((acc, type) => {
    acc[type] = `${base}_${type}`
    return acc
  }, {})
}

const user = createRequestTypes('USER')
console.log(user.REQUEST) // error
// just string? like:
interface IRequestType: {[key: string]: string}

I tried below, all failed:

type requestStatus = 'REQUEST' | 'SUCCESS' | 'FAILURE'
type requestTypes = {
  [key in requestStatus]: string
}
// or
interface IRequestTypes {[key: keyType]: string}
// or even
type requestTypes = {
  FAILURE: string,
  SUCCESS: string,
  REQUEST: string
}

[ihorskyi]

@maicWorkGithub here you go:

const user = createRequestTypes('USER')
console.log(user.REQUEST) 

function createRequestTypes(base:string):requestTypes {
  const result : requestTypes    = {}
  const arr    : requestStatus[] = ['REQUEST', 'SUCCESS', 'FAILURE']  
  
  return arr.reduce((acc, type) => {
    acc[type] = `${base}_${type}`
    return acc
  }, result)
}


type requestStatus = 'REQUEST' | 'SUCCESS' | 'FAILURE'
type requestTypes = { [key in requestStatus]?: string }

[maicWorkGithub]

@ihorskyi Thanks!!

[mvasin]

Just curious why type works, but interface doesn't. Can someone explain, please? What's the reason for such a limitation (or a feature?) of interface.

type Foo = 'a' | 'b';
type Bar = {[key in Foo]: any}; // ok
interface Baz {[key in Foo]: any} // =>

// A computed property name in an interface must refer to an expression whose type is a literal type or a 'unique symbol' type.ts(1169)
// A computed property name must be of type 'string', 'number', 'symbol', or 'any'.ts(2464)
// 'Foo' only refers to a type, but is being used as a value here.ts(2693)

[dgreene1]

This was an amazing auto-fix to discover. Thank you for implementing it! :)

[Bessonov]

Same for classes.

[maoxiaoke]

You can do this:

type Foo = 'a' | 'b';
type Bar = {[key in Foo]: any};

Though Bar has no index signature (i.e., you can't then do (obj as Bar)[value as Foo]).

Edit: Though if you could make the caveat a non-issue, I'd be eternally grateful!

Use Record instead!

type Foo = 'a' | 'b'
type Bar = Record<Foo, any>

[benwinding]

To add one more example of this using a class...

class Foo {
   a: string;
   b: string;
}

type Bar = {[key in keyof Foo]: any};

[Somebi]

No words, just meme:
https://media1.tenor.com/images/23d9d746fc87b3a93298af43dae21f6a/tenor.gif

:)

[therepo90]

its even better when using Partial

type A = 'x' | 'y' | 'z';
type M = Partial<{
    [key in A]: boolean
}>;

[apieceofbart]

Nobody knows what mapped object types are, so let's give them a quick fix that

@DanielRosenwasser
Why can't the error message suggest the answer e.g. show a quick example using mapped type - that would only be couple of lines of code which will be consistent with the average length of Typescript error messages

[b4dnewz]

does anyone know if is possible to say that the interface which uses the type or enum as key can accept only one property?

For example a signature like this: { <field>: { <and|or|xor>: <int> } } took from mongo bitwise operator.

export enum BitwiseOperator {
    and = "and",
    or = "or",
    xor = "xor",
}

export type BitwiseCondition = {
    [key in BitwiseOperator]?: number;
}

An then when using it, I would like to validate that the variable which is defined by the interface, has only one property.

const query: BitwiseCondition = {
  and: 5,
  or: 6  // raise a ts error
};

[apieceofbart]

@b4dnewz You can't do it in Typescript. Workaround: #10575

[benwinding]

@b4dnewz, if you only want 1 property, why not do it like this?

export enum BitwiseOperator {
  and = "and",
  or = "or",
  xor = "xor",
}

export type BitwiseCondition = {
  operator: BitwiseOperator;
  value: number;
}

[b4dnewz]

@benwinding unfortunately the returned shape is different from what mongodb expects

@apieceofbart thanks for the suggestion, I've looked into it, a bit redundant in terms of interfaces but can work, I'm not sure if I'll implement it now, since it's not a big deal if the final user tries a bitwise condition with two operators, mongo will throw an error anyway

I'm trying to keep the mongo-operators definitions as simple as possible to avoid me headaches 😁 maybe in future a proper support is added

[benwinding]

@b4dnewz fair enough,

Perhaps a simpler option you might be able to use is:

export type BitwiseCondition =
  | { or: number }
  | { xor: number }
  | { and: number }

That's about the closest you'll get without too much duplication

[apieceofbart]

@b4dnewz fair enough,

Perhaps a simpler option you might be able to use is:

export type BitwiseCondition =
  | { or: number }
  | { xor: number }
  | { and: number }

That's about the closest you'll get without too much duplication

This will not yield error in this example:

const query: BitwiseCondition = {
  and: 5,
  or: 6  // raise a ts error
};

I thought that's the whole point

[benwinding]

@apieceofbart,

This will not yield error in this example:

export type BitwiseCondition =
  | { or: number }
  | { xor: number }
  | { and: number }

const query: BitwiseCondition = {
  and: 5,
  or: 6  // doesn't raise a ts error!
};

Woah! that's weird 😮 I did not know that!

It's seems that Typescript doesn't support mutually exclusive types for objects. It's also was proposal for the language here: #14094

It is still technically possible though...

From this stackoverflow answer this is possible to achieve this using conditional types (the hardest types), but it aint pretty....

/*
 XOR boiler plate
*/
type Without<T, U> = { [P in Exclude<keyof T, keyof U>]?: never };
type XOR<T, U> = T | U extends object
  ? (Without<T, U> & U) | (Without<U, T> & T)
  : T | U;
type XOR3<S, T, U> = XOR<S, XOR<T, U>>;

// Code start
export type BitwiseCondition = XOR3<
  { or: number },
  { xor: number },
  { and: number }
>;

const query1: BitwiseCondition = {
  and: 5
};

const query: BitwiseCondition = {
  and: 5,
  or: 6 // raise a ts error
};

If anyone could make this prettier or better, please do

[daverickdunn]

@mvasin FWIW, this appears to achieve the same result, but I agree entirely that it should be a feature of interfaces just as it is on types.

type Foo = 'a' | 'b';

type Bar = {
  [key in Foo]: any
}

interface A extends Bar { }

class Wol implements A{
  a: any;
  b: any;
}

[chriszrc]

For typescript 3.5, it seems like I have to do this:

export interface DataTableState {
  columnStats: {[key in keyof DataTable]?:{}}
}

Is this the best way to do this?

[benwiley4000]

Why exactly can't an index signature use an enum type? The mapped type almost does what I want, but then TypeScript expects every string from the enum to exist as a defined key. I don't actually want to assert that every key exists, more that if any keys do exist, they must live in the enum.

For example for the type:

type MyType = {
  [Key: 'foo' | 'bar' | 'zip']: number;
};

This should satisfy:

const x: MyType = {
  foo: 1,
  zip: 2
};

While I could just set the other keys undefined for a mapped type, I prefer to make the keys optional, but if they're present, the value cannot be undefined. If I make the mapped type values optional the code works but the types are less strong.

[defusioner]

its even better when using Partial

type A = 'x' | 'y' | 'z';
type M = Partial<{
    [key in A]: boolean
}>;

Thanks!
Useful when you need to define a type that partially matches a dictionary

[ruojianll]

https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/advanced-types.html#mapped-types

[ZYinMD]

"Partial" can be used on Records too:

type Foo = 'a' | 'b';
let foo1: Record<Foo, number> = { a: 1, b: 2 };
let foo2: Partial<Record<Foo, number>> = { a: 1 };

[breck7]

I find myself unwittingly visiting this GitHub page every month or so.

My latest one is a real simple one:

interface ObjectLiteral {
    [key: string | number]: any
}
export const mapToObjectLiteral = (map: Map<string|number, any>) =>
    Array.from(map).reduce((objLit, [key, value]) => {
        objLit[key] = value
        return objLit
    }, {} as ObjectLiteral)

I can scroll up and figure out a workaround, but just wanted to provide feedback that this issue happens frequently in day to day work in slightly different scenarios.

[iahu]

here is an example:

type MapKey = string | number;
type ObjectLiteral<T extends MapKey, V = any> = {
  [P in T extends number ? string : T]: V;
};

export const mapToObjectLiteral = <T extends MapKey, V>(map: Map<T, V>) =>
  Array.from(map).reduce((objLit, [key, value]) => {
    objLit[key as keyof ObjectLiteral<T>] = value;
    return objLit;
  }, {} as ObjectLiteral<T, V>);

// how to make a better type of map ?
const m = new Map<1 | "foo", "a" | "b">();
m.set(1, "a");
m.set("foo", "b");

const o = mapToObjectLiteral(new Map(m));

console.log(o[1], o.foo); // just got an union type of every member of 'o'

[nelson6e65]

#24220 (comment)

To add one more example of this using a class...

class Foo {
   a: string;
   b: string;
}

type Bar = {[key in keyof Foo]: any};

Very useful. Thanks! 🚀