Remove unique symbol from RPC types - #2034
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
@mrbbot you may have some thoughts here... |
CarmenPopoviciu
approved these changes
Apr 18, 2024
Contributor
|
This change does fix the issue I was seeing here! |
Contributor
Seems reasonable. I'm kinda surprised different entrypoints/ambient/exported types works without lots of other conflicts. FWIW, it would've been possible for someone to go out of their way to use the unique symbols before, since they were exported from the |
garrettgu10
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 13, 2024
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixes #1996
Previously, the RPC types used
unique symbolto enforce nominal typing rather than structural typing for Durable Object and Service binding entrypoints. While this works, it's slightly too strict. It meant that different versions ofDurableObjectandWorkerEntrypointwere not compatible (e.g. across workers-types entrypoints, and across ambient and exported types. This PR relaxes that constraint to use a well-known string instead, which will preserve nominal typing unless someone goes out of their way to add a specific property.cc @Skye-31