Suggestion for readonly interface

[ababik]

Avoid duplicating "readonly" for each property by applying it to the interface definition itself.
This is to reduce boilerplate code defining immutable objects.

Having interface where ALL properties are read only:

interface State {
    readonly prop1: string;
    readonly prop2: string;
    ...
    readonly prop22: string;
}

equals to:

readonly interface State {
    prop1: string;
    prop2: string;
    ...
    prop22: string;
}

[acutmore]

This can already be achieved with a little bit of boilerplate.

interface State extends Readonly<{
    prop1: string;
    prop2: string;
    ...
    prop22: string;
}> { }

http://www.typescriptlang.org/play/#src=%0D%0Ainterface%20Foo%20extends%20Readonly%3C%7B%0D%0A%20%20%20%20prop1%3A%20string%3B%0D%0A%20%20%20%20prop2%3A%20number%3B%0D%0A%7D%3E%20%7B%20%7D%0D%0A%0D%0Adeclare%20const%20f%3A%20Foo%3B%0D%0A%0D%0Af.prop1%20%3D%20'test'%3B%0D%0A

[acutmore]

Have realised that my suggestion above has some limitations. Like using this for self-referential types

interface Foo extends Readonly<{
    prop1: string;
    prop2: number;
    prop3: this['prop1']; // 'this' type is available only in a non-static member of a class or interface.
}> { }

[aleclarson]

const interface might be nice for deep readonly (kinda like { a: { b: 1 } } as const)

[RomainMuller]

I think there might be value in extending this to cover a C++ like const behavior...

const interface Foo {
  property: string; // Implicitly readonly
  method(): void; // Cannot mutate `this`
}

interface Bar {
  const method(): void; // Guaranteed non-mutating
  mutatingMethod(): void; // Could mutate `this`
}

function baz(obj: const Bar) { // Require "obj" to not be mutated by implementation
  obj.mutatingMethod(); // 💥 illegal call of mutating method on const reference
}

I don't have particularly strong feelings on the const versus readonly term here... const is "nice" to me as it relates nicely to what this means in C++, which (some) people are used to.

[shicks]

There's a lot of discussion about various ways to apply readonly to individual properties, but nothing about readonly objects themselves. I've found that TypeScript's ReadonlyArray type is very trustworthy in preventing accidentally passing an array that shouldn't be mutated somewhere that could possibly mutate it:

const FOO = [1, 2] as const; // "TS has my back - this should never change"
function use(arr: Array<number>) { arr[0]++; }
use(FOO); // error!

But readonly properties on objects just don't have sufficient checking, nor are there any guards against passing objects to contexts that might mutate the object structure itself:

const FOO = {x: 1} as const; // "But is it really const?"
function use(obj: {x: number, y?: number}) { obj.x++; obj.y = 2; }
use(FOO); // "This is fine"

Playground Example

Ideally a readonly {x: number} would not be allowed to be silently upcast to {x: number}, possibly not even to {readonly x: number} since the readonly modifier outside would provide additional guarantees about the readonly-ness of the object structure itself. I don't have the slightest idea how feasible this actually is.

[acutmore]

@shicks

Ideally a readonly {x: number} would not be allowed to be silently upcast to {x: number},

This is already how readonly works, it isn’t silently upcast.

The reason there is no error is your example is because {x:1} as const produces the type {x:1} rather than {readonly x:1}.
The const modifier is only narrowing number to 1.

EDIT: I am wrong. It is being upcast. Viewing the playground on my phone it wasn’t showing the readonly modifier

[shicks]

This seems like sufficient scope for its own feature request, no?

[lautarodragan]

Love this proposal. I suspect it wouldn't be that big of a challenge to implement and the value is immense.

At a project I'm currently working on, as a team we settled on @acutmore's suggestion, but using DeepReadonly:

declare type DeepReadonly<T> = { readonly [K in keyof T]: DeepReadonly<T[K]> };

interface Interface extends DeepReadonly<{
  data: {
    prop1?: string; // this would be mutable if we extended for Readonly instead of DeepReadonly
  };
}> {}

This is still quite a bit of boilerplate, and the empty curly braces at the end (}> { }) aren't very elegant or intuitive.

This would be so more readable:

readonly interface State {
    prop1: string;
    prop2: string;
    ...
    prop22: string;
}

One question does arise: should the readonly modifier for the interface be a deep-readonly, or a shallow one?

Intuitively I think a deep/recursive readonly makes the most sense.

[shicks]

I guess my point is that we don't actually gain that much by simply distributing readonly to all the fields when the implicit downcasting (I believe I misspoke earlier when I called it upcasting) is on by default. Introducing new syntax provides an opportunity to also introduce stricter defaults that would otherwise be infeasible: if the readonly interface refused to implicitly downcast, I argue it would be much safer and more useful (and would be more likely to pull its own weight) than if it were simply syntactic sugar around something that's already possible.

EDIT: fixed typo

[lautarodragan]

Ah, I see what you mean @shicks! I hadn't seen your playground example before. That is really bad :/

I agree with you. I think they should be separate things though. I'd intuitively expect readonly to be syntax sugar (pretty much), but it's also a good opportunity to fix a mistake from the past.

[lautarodragan]

@shicks is there a GH issue to specifically tackle the downcasting?

[shicks]

I'm not aware of one.

[acutmore]

@shicks is there a GH issue to specifically tackle the downcasting?

I'm not aware of one.

#13347