Fixed narrowing of optional chains using type predicates#60120
Open
Andarist wants to merge 2 commits intomicrosoft:mainfrom
Open
Fixed narrowing of optional chains using type predicates#60120Andarist wants to merge 2 commits intomicrosoft:mainfrom
Andarist wants to merge 2 commits intomicrosoft:mainfrom
Conversation
Andarist
commented
Oct 2, 2024
Comment on lines
+29179
to
+29188
| if (!assumeTrue && type.flags & TypeFlags.Union && optionalChainContainsReference(expr, reference)) { | ||
| const types = [narrowedType]; | ||
| if (containsUndefinedType(type)) { | ||
| types.push(undefinedType); | ||
| } | ||
| if (containsType((type as UnionType).types, nullType)) { | ||
| types.push(nullType); | ||
| } | ||
| return getUnionType(types); | ||
| } |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm still thinking if this is the right place to "add back" those nullable types but in the meantime an extended test suite run could be insightful (however, this likely is not a popular pattern so maybe chances of it catching any potential issues is pretty low).
It feels like narrowTypeByCallExpression could be a better place for this... but it's much easier to do it here. narrowTypeByCallExpression receives a "flipped" assumeTrue so it isn't aware that it should not filter out null/undefined in what is the "true" !assumeTrue branch because it sees assumeTrue === true.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
note for myself: optionalChainContainsReference is too broad of a check, I should add tests with optional chains and identifier predicates
Member
|
I'll run the tests, but the self test is failing which implies something wrong (in one way or another) @typescript-bot test it |
Collaborator
Collaborator
|
Hey @jakebailey, the results of running the DT tests are ready. Everything looks the same! |
Collaborator
|
@jakebailey Here are the results of running the user tests with tsc comparing Everything looks good! |
Contributor
Author
|
Repro of the self-check failure: TS playground. I'll investigate this soon. |
Collaborator
|
@jakebailey Here they are:
tscComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Collaborator
|
@jakebailey Here are the results of running the top 400 repos with tsc comparing Everything looks good! |
Contributor
Author
|
For now, I fixed the self-check by adding an explicit annotation. The regression found here is unfortunate but I don't think this is a new problem, just see this journey through examples: TS playground. It feels like this didn't error previously out of sheer luck. @jakebailey could you rerun perf tests? The current reported numbers for the self codebase are worrying but I don't see how this PR could affect parse or bind times. Was it just a fluke? 🤔 |
Member
|
@typescript-bot perf test this faster |
Collaborator
Collaborator
|
@jakebailey Here they are:
tscComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
3 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 #60106