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

add loader inference #122

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 14, 2022
Merged

add loader inference #122

merged 3 commits into from
Jul 14, 2022

Conversation

kentcdodds
Copy link
Member

I'm not getting the loader inference I expected. data ends up being any. Am I doing something wrong here @colinhacks?

type LoaderData = {
noteListItems: Awaited<ReturnType<typeof getNoteListItems>>;
};

export const loader: LoaderFunction = async ({ request }) => {
Copy link

@penspinner penspinner Jul 14, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
export const loader: LoaderFunction = async ({ request }) => {
export const loader = async ({ request }: LoaderArgs) => {

What happens if you remove LoaderFunction?

Copy link
Contributor

@mcansh mcansh Jul 14, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yup, need to type the args and not the full function as LoaderFunction returns Promise<Response> | Response | Promise<AppData> | AppData where AppData is actually just any

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yikes. I don't remember agreeing to that. How do we avoid that?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

FWIW, it does work. But is there any way we can avoid having to type the args? I'd much rather type the whole function and get type safety on what's returned as well as the args.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Though I could be convinced. I just don't remember signing up for this so I need to process it a bit...

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I hate the fact that we need to type args instead of the whole function, but I like the type inference so it's a hard one for me 😕

Copy link
Contributor

@chaance chaance Jul 14, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Agreed, but I think the choice here was constrained by this being a breaking change if we changed the LoaderFunction/ActionFunction types. Seems like something we'll have to reconsider for v2.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, after looking at it more, I realize that it's required for TypeScript to infer the return type. My mistake. Fixing now.

Copy link

@pcattori pcattori Jul 14, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If/when the satisfies operator makes it into Typescript, we'll get the best of both worlds:

// syntax for `satisfies` TBD
const loader: satisfies LoaderFunction = () => { // TS will error if `loader` doesn't conform to `LoaderFunction`
  return json({ hello: "world"}) // ... but will still infer the narrower return type here
  // ^ use `{hello: "world"} as const` if you want `"world"` literal type instead of just `string`. standard TS thing
}

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@kentcdodds kentcdodds merged commit 62745f8 into main Jul 14, 2022
@kentcdodds kentcdodds deleted the loader-inference branch July 14, 2022 18:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants