Skip to content
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

Improve TypeScript type-safety of cache.modify #10895

Merged
merged 10 commits into from Jun 13, 2023

Conversation

Gelio
Copy link
Contributor

@Gelio Gelio commented May 19, 2023

This PR contains 2 changes that aim to improve the type safety of fields in cache.modify.

  1. Add unique opaque types for the DELETE and INVALIDATE modifiers, so they are not any. This helps make the @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-return rule happy.
  2. Add a generic type parameter for the Modifiers type to get type inference for fields names and values.

I described the changes in the commits. Look at their descriptions for more information.

Both changes only affect TypeScript types. There are no runtime changes.

I understand the 2nd commit is riskier than the first commit. I can split it into 2 PRs if you want to take longer with the review.

Checklist:

  • If this PR contains changes to the library itself (not necessary for e.g. docs updates), please include a changeset (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
  • If this PR is a new feature, please reference an issue where a consensus about the design was reached (not necessary for small changes) small feature, does not apply
  • Make sure all of the significant new logic is covered by tests

@apollo-cla
Copy link

@Gelio: Thank you for submitting a pull request! Before we can merge it, you'll need to sign the Apollo Contributor License Agreement here: https://contribute.apollographql.com/

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented May 19, 2023

👷 Deploy request for apollo-client-docs pending review.

Visit the deploys page to approve it

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 6973cd4

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented May 19, 2023

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: fc50711

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Name Type
@apollo/client Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

@Gelio Gelio force-pushed the type-safe-cache-modifiers branch from 088691e to bbc2cea Compare May 19, 2023 11:39
@jerelmiller
Copy link
Member

Hey @Gelio 👋

Thanks so much for this PR! I'd like to talk about this a bit more with the team and pull this down to assess the backwards compatibility. We should be able to take a look at it next week. Thanks so much for helping make this library better for TypeScript users!

@Gelio
Copy link
Contributor Author

Gelio commented May 20, 2023

That's great! I'm looking forward to your feedback

As far as backwards compatibility goes, both commits should be transparent to end users who haven't added any type annotations themselves in the past. The default types are still any. It is only those who added manual type annotations that will be impacted, unfortunately.

@jerelmiller jerelmiller requested a review from phryneas May 23, 2023 15:25
Copy link
Member

@phryneas phryneas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Heyo, thanks a ton for the PR - it definitely makes things a lot better already. I have added a few comments. We might consider going a step further than this for easier discoverability.

? StoreVal | Reference
: StoreVal;

export type Modifiers<T extends Record<string, unknown>> = Partial<{
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This should have a default value to be backwards compatible.

Suggested change
export type Modifiers<T extends Record<string, unknown>> = Partial<{
export type Modifiers<T extends Record<string, unknown> = Record<string, unknown>> = Partial<{

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good idea 👍 I did that

Comment on lines 79 to 82
declare const _deleteModifier: unique symbol;
export type DeleteModifier = typeof _deleteModifier
declare const _invalidateModifier: unique symbol;
export type InvalidateModifier = typeof _invalidateModifier
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
declare const _deleteModifier: unique symbol;
export type DeleteModifier = typeof _deleteModifier
declare const _invalidateModifier: unique symbol;
export type InvalidateModifier = typeof _invalidateModifier
declare const _deleteModifier: unique symbol;
export interface DeleteModifier { [_deleteModifier]: true }
declare const _invalidateModifier: unique symbol;
export interface InvalidateModifier { [_invalidateModifier]: true}

Before this change:
image

After:
image

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Gelio Gelio May 30, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I noticed that earlier but didn't come up with a way of fixing it. Thanks for a ready-made snippet! I used that in the code

@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ export namespace Cache {

export interface ModifyOptions {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Have you considered adding a generic to ModifyOptions and adding an overload using that cache.modify?

While I love the extra safety we are already getting here through satisfies Modifiers<Book>, it is not a very discoverable solution, so it might be an idea to explore that additional step.

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 like the idea. I added a generic parameter to modify with any as the default value. It seems to work good enough and is backwards compatible, as far as I can tell.

My previous attempt without the `any` default type

So far, I added the generic like so:

  export interface ModifyOptions<T> {
    id?: string;
    fields: T extends Record<string, unknown>
      ? Modifiers<T> | Modifier<T>
      : Modifier<T>;
    optimistic?: boolean;
    broadcast?: boolean;
  }

I added the extends Record<string, unknown> conditional type because Modifiers expect its generic parameter to extend Record<string, unknown>.

I believe that this conditional type makes type inference fail to infer the type of T based on the fields object:

  declare function modify<T>(options: ModifyOptions<T>): void;

  modify({
    fields: {
      bar: (value, options) => {
        return value;
      }
    }
  })

image

T is inferred as unknown, whereas it could be inferred to { bar: unknown }.

image

Thus, looks like a default type of any is needed to make this change backwards-compatible.

@Gelio
Copy link
Contributor Author

Gelio commented May 30, 2023

Thanks for your review! I addressed the comments. I haven't rebased on main yet to make the latest additions easier to review. I am happy to rebase the branch whenever it's necessary

@Gelio Gelio requested a review from phryneas May 30, 2023 16:33
Copy link
Member

@phryneas phryneas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, thank you!

Just one minor nitpick - maybe we can avoid that any there :)

@@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ export class InMemoryCache extends ApolloCache<NormalizedCacheObject> {
}
}

public modify(options: Cache.ModifyOptions): boolean {
public modify<Entity = any>(options: Cache.ModifyOptions<Entity>): boolean {
Copy link
Member

@phryneas phryneas May 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we could go for Record<string, any> as a default here - or am I missing any edge case where modify could be called on something that is not an object?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You are right, good point 👍 I made that change in a separate commit

@Gelio Gelio force-pushed the type-safe-cache-modifiers branch from 09a0528 to 3681939 Compare June 2, 2023 09:03
@Gelio
Copy link
Contributor Author

Gelio commented Jun 2, 2023

I rebased the branch on top of the latest main. It was a clean rebase, without modifying any existing commits. There is only one new commit since the last time @phryneas reviewed the PR

Problem: The `DELETE` and `INVALIDATE` modifiers type is `any`.
Returning them from the `Modifier<T>` function triggers the
`@typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-return` ESLint rule [0],
since the modifier is then returning a value with type `any`.

Solution: Set the types of these modifiers to two different `unique
symbol`s. These serve as unique opaque types. The consuming code should
not peek into them. These 2 types are permitted in the return type of
the `Modifier<T>` function, since they are not `any` anymore, and thus,
are not assignable to `T`.

This change only affects TypeScript types. It has no runtime impact.

[0]: https://typescript-eslint.io/rules/no-unsafe-return/
Problem: The `fields` property in `cache.modify` did not offer ways to
infer the field names or values based on the field type. It accepted any
field names and the field values were `any`.

Solution: Add a generic type parameter for the object type to the
`Modifiers` type. The code can now use the `satisfies Modifiers<...>`
operator to inform TypeScript about the possible field names and values.

Field values include `Reference`s for objects and arrays. The consuming
code is then responsible for checking (or asserting) that the field
value is or is not a reference.
Interfaces retain their names in error messages and hover dialogs. Type
aliases did not.
A generic parameter is easier to discover and set than
`fields: { ... } satisfies Modifiers<...>`
Use a more appropriate real-life default type for `cache.modify`.
@phryneas
Copy link
Member

Just looking at this, I'm gonna add some more changes and rebase this on 3.8

One thing that I noticed:

extends Record<string, unknown> only matches type, not interface declarations - so I have to fall back to extends Record<string, any> again, sadly.

@Gelio
Copy link
Contributor Author

Gelio commented Jun 12, 2023

Right, I always had trouble with these 2 variants of extends. Thanks for taking care of this PR 👍 Let me know if you need any assistance from me

@phryneas phryneas changed the base branch from main to release-3.8 June 12, 2023 13:14
@phryneas phryneas removed the request for review from StephenBarlow June 12, 2023 13:14
@@ -2817,7 +2817,7 @@ describe("InMemoryCache#modify", () => {

cache.modify({
fields: {
comments(comments: Reference[], { readField }) {
comments(comments: readonly Reference[], { readField }) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This change might introduce a bit of churn for our users (but for good reason) - instead of allowing Reference[] | ObjectType[] here, we pass these arrays in as ReadonlyArray.

We should talk about this at the meeting tomorrow.

@phryneas
Copy link
Member

phryneas commented Jun 12, 2023

I've given this a rebase on 3.8 and a force-push.

@Gelio I have also introduced some changes - could you please give my review a review?

General changes:

  • added tests
  • extends Record<string, unknown> => extends Record<string, any> to match interface and type declarations
  • field changed from Modifier<Entity> to AllFieldsModifier<Entity>, which is a modifier function that essentially accepts all possible prop values of Entity, as that field function will be called for all the fields on Entity, not the Entity itself.
  • Array types are now readonly (this might introduce some churn & needs internal discussion)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Gelio Gelio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for taking care of this PR 👍 I especially like the types tests you added.

I added some comments. I believe only the one in src/cache/inmemory/types.ts is worth taking care of before the merge. Others are non-blocking and suggestions for improvements.

Let me know if you want me to address them. I thought I would just bring them up so you can have your say before we modify the code more.

.changeset/afraid-zebras-punch.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/cache/inmemory/__tests__/cache.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/cache/core/types/common.ts Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ import gql from 'graphql-tag';
import { ApolloCache } from '../cache';
import { Cache, DataProxy } from '../..';
import { Reference } from '../../../utilities/graphql/storeUtils';

import { expectTypeOf } from 'expect-type'
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 am afraid tests are excluded from typechecking. I intentionally created a typechecking error and npm run build passed

image

Am I missing something?

If not, then perhaps we should start also typechecking tests to catch errors there. It would probably be safest to do in a separate PR. I'm just bringing it up here as I noticed a possible improvement (or a lack of understanding on my part)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

They are from building, but they are checked when running the tests - also in CI.
See this CI run: https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/apollographql/apollo-client/20241/workflows/ece99794-faac-4ed0-b938-f8fe5e2b697c/jobs/102866

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 see. Thanks for the info. I missed that typechecking happens during tests.

n cases like this one, I usually see 2 TS projects: one for the source code, one for the tests. The build typechecking (that happens in npm run build) can only compile the code project, while there could be a separate npm script that typechecks both projects. This way the typechecking would be easier to discover. Just some food for thought from an external contributor 🙂

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Gelio I'm late to the party, but figured I'd offer you (and others that stumble upon this comment) an explanation as to why you're seeing this.

We deliberately disabled strict type checking in development (#10268) because we wanted the ability to comment out code when debugging issues against failing tests while allowing our tests to run with broken types. Sometimes the easiest way to figure out why something is failing is to comment out specific parts of code to figure out what line of code is causing the issue. Debugging like this in some cases cascaded all over the place (I remember one of these to spot check a specific line of code and I ended up having to comment 50-60 lines of code just to get the test to run).

Instead, we allow TypeScript errors, but have it just show a warning at the very top of the tests. This allows us to see there are type issues, but our tests will still run. As @phryneas said, we have strict type checking when running in CI, so it will be caught in PRs and such.

Hope this helps!

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Gelio Gelio Jun 21, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@jerelmiller Thanks for a thorough explanation!

I understand the problem you were trying to solve. I would also be frustrated at the tests not attempting to run because there are some unused symbols in the code

A solution I see more commonly used in the wild is fully separating the typechecking from testing. I don't see much of the reason for jest (or ts-jest) to do both. As a fellow engineer, I would much rather have a dedicated npm script for typechecking, and a separate one for just running the tests (without checking the types). That would be less of a surprise than the current state of affairs 🙂

Maybe you would also get faster feedback this way, since jest would only strip the types and not have to compile the project first. This opens up possibilities of using a different jest transpiler, like @swc/jest, which could be faster at transpiling TS than tsc

I thought I would share this perspective of a first-time contributor.

src/cache/core/types/common.ts Show resolved Hide resolved
src/cache/inmemory/types.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@phryneas
Copy link
Member

Please go ahead and continue fixing things here - thank you for working with us on this :)

Use an already installed library instead of introducing a new utility
function.
Promote the use of a generic parameter of `cache.modify` over using
`satisfies` which requires importing the `Modifers` type.
@Gelio
Copy link
Contributor Author

Gelio commented Jun 12, 2023

I'm happy to contribute :) I've just applied to suggestions and pushed 3 commits to the branch. The code looks good to me now

@Gelio Gelio requested a review from phryneas June 12, 2023 18:10
Copy link
Member

@phryneas phryneas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me now! Before we get this merged, I'll discuss the change to ReadonlyArray internally to get a team decision on that part.

@phryneas phryneas merged commit e187866 into apollographql:release-3.8 Jun 13, 2023
5 checks passed
@Gelio
Copy link
Contributor Author

Gelio commented Jun 13, 2023

@phryneas Thanks for merging the PR 🎉

@Gelio Gelio deleted the type-safe-cache-modifiers branch June 13, 2023 16:08
@phryneas
Copy link
Member

@Gelio thank you for putting the work in and opening the PR in the first place! 😊

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 22, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants