Infer from union combined single signatures #58482
Open
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
typescript-bot
added
the
For Uncommitted Bug
|
This PR doesn't have any linked issues. Please open an issue that references this PR. From there we can discuss and prioritise. |
Andarist
commented
May 9, 2024
| @@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ declare const f: { (x: string): number, a: "" } & { a: number } | |||
| > : ^^^^^^ | |||
|
|
|||
| f() | |||
| >f() : any | |||
| > : ^^^ | |||
| >f() : number | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function itself is still not callable here but that erroneous call shows a better return type now. This is caused by getSingleSignature handling structured types now (an intersection in this very case)
Andarist
commented
May 9, 2024
| @@ -280,5 +280,5 @@ export class L { | |||
| set x(value: any); | |||
| } | |||
| export class M { | |||
| set x(value: any); | |||
| set x(value: boolean); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comes from:
/**
* @param {number | boolean} v
*/
const mSetter1 = (v) => {}
/**
* @param {string | boolean} v
*/
const mSetter2 = (v) => {}
export class M {}
Object.defineProperty(M.prototype, "x", {
set: Math.random() ? mSetter1 : mSetter2
});This feels like an improvement, those setter functions can be combined safely to a single signature with a boolean parameter
|
@typescript-bot test it |
|
Hey @jakebailey, the results of running the DT tests are ready. There were interesting changes: Branch only errors:Package: webpack/v4 |
|
@jakebailey Here are the results of running the user tests comparing Something interesting changed - please have a look. Details
|
|
@jakebailey Here they are:
tscComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@jakebailey Here are the results of running the top 400 repos comparing Something interesting changed - please have a look. Details
|
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.
I treat this as an experiment right now. I think the logic is sound and it makes sense. However, I wonder:
fixes #58468