-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.5k
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
Bugfix/fix for correctly generating additional properties, added types for typescript #18491
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
… itself for parent
…rator into bugfix/typescript-fix-for-correctly-set-parent-when-additional-properties-exist
…rator into bugfix/typescript-fix-for-correctly-set-parent-when-additional-properties-exist
…nown as known primitive in selializer
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ | |||
*/ | |||
export type {{classname}} = { | |||
{{#additionalPropertiesType}} | |||
[key: string]: {{{additionalPropertiesType}}}{{#hasVars}} | any{{/hasVars}}; | |||
[key: string]: {{{additionalPropertiesType}}}{{#hasVars}} | unknown{{/hasVars}}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if its a good idea to use unknown
instead of any
, since this probably breaks a lot of client code that accesses these values
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From the typescript perspective (ECMA standarts etc) it is better to use unknown, as it is exactly describe its state/type, which is unknown and you must check/know the type of it. IMO it make the code more error-free/robust in runtime as you will be forced to check the type.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can put it back to any but my linter and strict tsconfig settings do not like it, which is sign of not best typing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Or maybe, make use of config switch supportsES6
that when it would be true, it would use unknown
instead of any
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i would suggest to switch it back to any
, in order not to break existing use cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for late reply, had a lot in work... I do not agree with that completely, preserving backwards compatibility si for sure important, but in our codebase, any
type will fail in every project as we use strict typing config from official ts configs package. I suggest to add config switch to generator that we will be able to set if any
of unknown
, as default there would be any
so preserving backwards compatibility, what do you think? @macjohnny @andreseloysv
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
applying linting/strict typing rules etc. to generated code is a hard one anyway. you can always just have a custom script to post-process the output and replace any
with unknown
a config switch sounds a bit like an overkill here, no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@macjohnny We use that, because we have strict typing rule in our org :/ and tbh imo, having script to post-process the output and replace any with unknown is overkill as you would change already generated code, instead, with switch, you would just already set what will be generated in the end. In @sunray-eu We would really love to have this switch available. Let me know your final decision if it would be to big change in code with this switch adding, and then, we can finally merge it. Thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
*shrug* ok lets have the switch. an alternative though would be to generate the code into a separate npm package, and import that package in your project. this way, you dont need to apply your projects build rules.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have alternative package, of course, but 1. there is also build, 2. when we use it in other package, the return data type is sometimes any, which in lot of cases disable type check
Followup for PR #18164 - Optimising fix for additional properties. Added missing types in typescript. Updated tests for Java.
FYI: @TiFu (2017/07) @taxpon (2017/07) @sebastianhaas (2017/07) @kenisteward (2017/07) @Vrolijkx (2017/09) @macjohnny (2018/01) @topce (2018/10) @akehir (2019/07) @petejohansonxo (2019/11) @amakhrov (2020/02) @davidgamero (2022/03) @mkusaka (2022/04)
PR checklist
Commit all changed files.
This is important, as CI jobs will verify all generator outputs of your HEAD commit as it would merge with master.
These must match the expectations made by your contribution.
You may regenerate an individual generator by passing the relevant config(s) as an argument to the script, for example
./bin/generate-samples.sh bin/configs/java*
.IMPORTANT: Do NOT purge/delete any folders/files (e.g. tests) when regenerating the samples as manually written tests may be removed.
master
(upcoming 7.1.0 minor release - breaking changes with fallbacks),8.0.x
(breaking changes without fallbacks)