Wrong behavior in new diagnostic missing-fields with union types

[TwIStOy]

How are you using the lua-language-server?

NeoVim

Which OS are you using?

MacOS

What is the issue affecting?

Annotations, Type Checking, Diagnostics/Syntax Checking

Expected Behaviour

The given code:

---@class Foo
---@field a number
---@field b number
---@field c number

---@type Foo|Foo[]
local a = {
  {
    a = 1,
    b = 2,
    c = 3,
  }
}

Should not report nothing. Because a matches Foo[].

Actual Behaviour

Report missing-field diagnostic.

Reproduction steps

Code above...

Additional Notes

No response

Log File

No response

[TwIStOy]

---@class Foo
---@field a number
---@field b number
---@field c number

---@class Bar
---@field ba number
---@field bb number
---@field bc number

---@type Foo|Bar
local b = {
  a = 1,
  b = 2,
  c = 3,
}

This case report missing-field too.

[GiuseppeIII]

The unions actually create an intersection. Does doing:

local b = {
  a = 1,
  b = 2,
  c = 3,
  ba = 1,
  bb = 2,
  bc = 3,
}

work?

[TwIStOy]

This works.
But in my understanding, the union TYPE_A | TYPE_B means that the value's type is TYPE_A or TYPE_B, not the value is both TYPE_A and TYPE_B. So the diagnostic missing-field behaves wrong.

[GiuseppeIII]

This is a known issue, see: #2102
I agree though, I also prefer the type narrowing approach 👍

[firas-assaad]

I'm getting a lot of false positives because of this issue. For example:

---@class A
---@field required boolean

---@alias A_or_string A|string

---@type A_or_string|A_or_string[]
local x = { 'hi' } -- Missing field `required`

[9mm]

Is the fix from 2 weeks ago what fixes this? I'm trying to figure out why this showed up today in all my neovim configs

[tummetott]

I have the same problem. Could you find a fix @9mm ?

[9mm]

@tummetott no I havent found it yet .. I wasnt even sure if this was the problem but given my problem just showed up at the exact time this issue was made I thought it might be

[davelongdev]

i'm seeing a bunch of missing fields warnings all of a sudden in my init.lua. not sure why. looks like it's only happening in tables passed to .setup.

[Deshdeepak1]

I have the same problem as @9mm .

[thatnerdjosh]

As a workaround - adding this before that table seems to work for me @9mm:

    ---@diagnostic disable-next-line missing-fields      

[9mm]

As a workaround - adding this before that table seems to work for me @9mm:

    ---@diagnostic disable-next-line missing-fields      

Interesting, thanks. I wish I knew the proper way to handle it... am I initializing plugins wrong? I feel like I shouldnt need to disable lines if using plugins, especially big ones like cmp and treesitter. @sumneko do you have any insight?

[Deshdeepak1]

@thatnerdjosh thanks, but why it is not working using the server options?

[sumneko]

As a workaround - adding this before that table seems to work for me @9mm:

    ---@diagnostic disable-next-line missing-fields      

Interesting, thanks. I wish I knew the proper way to handle it... am I initializing plugins wrong? I feel like I shouldnt need to disable lines if using plugins, especially big ones like cmp and treesitter. @sumneko do you have any insight?

You can disable this by setting diagnostics.disable

[firas-assaad]

If I had to guess the issue is that the annotations for cmp have to be updated to mark fields as optional. Check the definition of cmp.ConfigSchema here: https://github.com/hrsh7th/nvim-cmp/blob/51f1e11a89ec701221877532ee1a23557d291dd5/lua/cmp/types/cmp.lua#L85

If you open an issue in the nvim-cmp repo or make a pull request to mark fields as optional (e.g. ---@field private revision integer becomes ---@field private revision? integer with a question mark) then the issue would be resolved.

[diegoulloao]

Solution here: https://www.reddit.com/r/neovim/comments/15onr5j/comment/k8wlbl0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3