Avoid elaborating missing properties on common container types

[DanielRosenwasser]

As a separate change, it might be nice to special case the message Foo is not assignable to Promise<Foo> to say something about adding await, rather than listing missing properties.

Originally posted by @amcasey in #35278

[DanielRosenwasser]

• Array
• ReadonlyArray
• Promise
• Set
• Map
• WeakSet
• WeakMap
• Typed Arrays

[fatcerberus]

special case the message Foo is not assignable to Promise<Foo>

Isn't that backwards? It should be the other way around because:

declare let foo: Foo;
declare let fooPromise: Promise<Foo>;
fooPromise = foo;

adding an await wouldn't actually help you in the case above. It would if the assignment were the other way around.

[Kingwl]

Any common error message? Such as maybe you should wrap xx into yy

[weswigham]

Do you need an 'X' of 'Y'? ex, Do you need an 'Array' of 'number'? or Do you need an 'IteratorResult' of '{x: number, y: number}'? maybe? Eh, that's maybe not great when X has multiple generics, as it's ambiguous to which you're referring.

[weswigham]

I do think promise is a bit more special than the rest of these, however - passing a Promise.resolve(x) rather than just x is common given promise-based API shapes. Wrapping a single value into a collection, however, I'd find much more suspect.

[RyanCavanaugh]

This works as expected now