Skip to content

fix(combo): type the custom-model row in the auto pool check - #15461

Merged
diegosouzapw merged 2 commits into
diegosouzapw:release/v3.8.52from
HouMinXi:fix/15437-implicit-any
Oct 6, 2026
Merged

diegosouzapw merged 2 commits into
diegosouzapw:release/v3.8.52from
HouMinXi:fix/15437-implicit-any

Conversation

@HouMinXi

@HouMinXi HouMinXi commented Oct 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Validation

  • npm run typecheck:noimplicit:core exits 0 after the change
  • Removing the annotation makes the same command fail with TS7006 on this callback, then restoring it passes again
  • Forge review, two LOCAL runs on review-default: 0 CONFIRMED. The surviving UNCERTAIN notes disagree with each other (one says id is required, one says the row might not be an object). getCustomModels at src/lib/db/models.ts returns JSON.parse or [], so id is not a required typed field. The receipt line-count note is an excerpt check, not a product defect.

Tests Added Or Updated

  • None. The failing check is the repository typecheck command. No runtime branch changed.

Coverage Notes

  • Not applicable. Type annotation only.

Reviewer Notes

  • addCustomModel stores objects with id: modelId. The read path does not re-validate that shape, which is existing behavior. This change does not parse or trust a new field.

typecheck:noimplicit:core failed on the callback in expandAutoComboCandidatePool.
getCustomModels returns JSON.parse, so the row has no inferred type. The callback
only reads id, and a missing id is skipped. The annotation matches that read.
Related to diegosouzapw#15437.

Signed-off-by: Minxi Hou <houminxi@gmail.com>
@HouMinXi
HouMinXi requested a review from diegosouzapw as a code owner October 3, 2026 15:24
The type annotation PR needs its own changelog fragment so release
aggregation picks it up.

Signed-off-by: Minxi Hou <houminxi@gmail.com>
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.

2 participants