Incorrect types for chalk in tagged template literal form

[vanbujm]

I am using chalk to do some logging and I noticed this issue.

chalk`{black.bold  Worker:${process.pid}: } {blue.bold job received}: ${job.id}`

In this case I am giving chalk two numbers instead of strings.
Typescript complains about this because chalk's tagged template literal form is defined as

(text: TemplateStringsArray, ...placeholders: string[]): string;

In my case placeholders contains numbers.

Now I could fix this by doing

chalk`{black.bold  Worker:${`${process.pid}`}: } {blue.bold job received}: ${`${job.id}`}`

but that feels wrong.

Ideally it would be some type union of things easily parsed to string (||etc etc)

(text: TemplateStringsArray, ...placeholders: ParseableToString[]): string;

[Qix-]

Yeah agreed, this is wrong. Can someone from the typescript community submit a fix? I don't know enough of it.

[vanbujm]

I am happy to submit a PR if someone can define the type that it should be. A quick fix would be to change it to any[] but it is probably better to define some type union.

[Qix-]

You can interpolate any type. We don't enforce anything.

[vanbujm]

The typing enforces that the values you interpolate are strings.
index.d.ts:30 as seen above:
(text: TemplateStringsArray, ...placeholders: string[]): string;

Unless I am mistaken this line defines the tagged template literal.
where text will be your broken up input string around each ${} and placeholders is an array of inputs that the user is trying to interpolate.

ie:

chalk`part1 ${foo} part2`

Would be chalk( ["part1 ", " part2"], [foo] )
If foo was anything other than a string, Typescript will complain saying "Argument is not assignable to type string".

[Qix-]

And what I'm saying is we don't care what the placeholder types are, much less that they are strings...

[vanbujm]

Shall I submit a fix then with type any?

[Qix-]

Sure, but I'd like to get a confirmation that any is the correct thing to do here. Like I said, I have no idea how Typescript types work.

[sindresorhus]

Yes, it should be any or rather unknown would be even better.

[langpavel]

Ohh, sorry, reference from 317 is invalid (should be to 318 not to this 314). Fixed, but reference will stay :-\