Skip to content

Conversation

@weswigham
Copy link
Member

In getSimplifiedType, adds a branch which transforms (T & {[P in keyof T]: Foo})[K] (which we can't reason about, thanks to how we combine the intersection before looking for members on its apparent type) into {[P in keyof T]: T[P] & Foo}[K] (which we can reason about).

Specifically, in the first case, when calculating its constraint, we see that it's an indexed access, attempt to simplify it (and it doesn't), then we get the base constraints of T & {[P in keyof T]: Foo} and K, and produce a new indexed access - that becomes ({} & {})[string | number | symbol], which then becomes the error type.

Now, when we attempt to simplify it, we apply the above mapping, and the index type {[P in keyof T]: T[P] & Foo}[K] in the provided sample simplifies to T[K] & Foo (since K is keyof T) whose constraint is simply Foo.

Fixes #25181

@weswigham weswigham requested review from ahejlsberg and mhegazy July 6, 2018 23:56
newMappedType.typeParameter = (t as MappedType).typeParameter;
newMappedType.constraintType = (t as MappedType).constraintType;
const newSet = (<IntersectionType>objectType).types.slice();
newSet.splice(matchIndex!, 1); // Remove the generic
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

orderedRemoveItemAt (or unorderedRemoveItemAt if it doesn't matter)

newMappedType.constraintType = (t as MappedType).constraintType;
const newSet = (<IntersectionType>objectType).types.slice();
newSet.splice(matchIndex!, 1); // Remove the generic
newSet.splice(newSet.indexOf(t), 1, newMappedType); // Remove the original mapped type
Copy link
Member

@DanielRosenwasser DanielRosenwasser Jul 7, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not directly overwrite the original location?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

... fair point. I was in a splicy mood, I suppose.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥

// If we don't do such a transformation now, due to how we reason over intersections, we will never come to the
// realization that the member we're trying to pluck out is influenced by both `T[P]` _and_ the mapped type template
const isInSet = isMappedTypeOverKeyofGenericInSet((<IntersectionType>objectType).types);
if (some((<IntersectionType>objectType).types, isInSet)) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you turn this into a findIndex and then avoid the inner loop?

@weswigham
Copy link
Member Author

Superseded by #26281, which is much more elegant, IMO.

@weswigham weswigham closed this Aug 8, 2018
@microsoft microsoft locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 21, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants