Skip to content
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

Intersection type in template literal is not reduced to its bare type #57918

Open
unional opened this issue Mar 23, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Intersection type in template literal is not reduced to its bare type #57918

unional opened this issue Mar 23, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
Awaiting More Feedback This means we'd like to hear from more people who would be helped by this feature Suggestion An idea for TypeScript

Comments

@unional
Copy link
Contributor

unional commented Mar 23, 2024

πŸ”Ž Search Terms

template literal, intersection type

πŸ•— Version & Regression Information

⏯ Playground Link

https://www.typescriptlang.org/play?#code/C4TwDgpgBAysBOBLAdgcwCrggHgNJQgA9gJkATAZygoRVQD4oBeKfIk8qmpNKAMigoAZhHhQAqgCgAkAH4oAbVwAaCQF0CxUpUXjVuNTPkBvAL6aOO44oAKg5FAAGAEmO5TjtQC4oAV2QA1sgA9gDuDqZGUADkJAC2YAA2AIYkADKIJPDJidEyPtHcdBlZOXnSBUVo5T7IEABuopKSoJBQAEoAjMywtGiYkNhVDJIA9KNQkwB6si1YHQBMPXA8GFhDfaj8UNbJPt2m9GMT07Nzbe0AzMubAzjRyQBGAMbRR+OTUDPn0O0ALDdVndsA8XtFtrt9lBDsdPt8fh0AKyAujAlzGZC+OKPUQed4nL6zVq-ABsKP663RmOxuMcEKgeygB3xcLOUCAA

πŸ’» Code

type StringType<K extends string> = K extends string & infer U
	? [K, U] extends [U, K]
	? {} extends { [P in `${K}`]: unknown }
	? 'templateLiteral'
	: 'stringLiteral'
	: 'string'
	: never

type R1 = StringType<string>
//   ^? type R1 = "string"
type R2 = StringType<string & { a: 1 }>
//   ^? type R2 = "string"

type R3 = StringType<'abc'>
//   ^? type R3 = "stringLiteral"
type R4 = StringType<'abc' & { a: 1 }>
//   ^? type R4 = "templateLiteral" <-- should be "stringLiteral"

type R5 = StringType<`${number}`>
//   ^? type R5 = "templateLiteral"
type R6 = StringType<`${number}` & { a: 1 }>
//   ^? type R6 = "templateLiteral"

πŸ™ Actual behavior

type R = `${'abc' & { a: 1 }}`
// did not reduce => `${'abc' & { a: 1 }}`

πŸ™‚ Expected behavior

type R = `${'abc' & { a: 1 }}`
// should reduce to => `${'abc'}`
// => `abc`

Additional information about the issue

I mentioned this in #54648 after it is closed. It is limiting our ability to write the types that works with string literal and template literal and there is no alternative way to workaround that.
I'm suggesting this issue should be fixed and restore the behavior in 5.0.

Here is my original comment:

This behavior is causing a few types in type-plus to fail (e.g. IsTemplateLiteral, IsStringLiteral, Omit, IsNegative, etc) unional/type-plus#429.

In term of soundness, IMO it does make sense that ${string & { a: 1 }} to be reduced to ${string}.

in JS, it would be:

const extendedStr = Object.assign('abc', { a: 1 })
console.log(`${extendedStr}`) // 'abc'

the reasoning being the toString(): string remains unchanged thus the resulting type should be safe to reduce.

@jcalz

This comment was marked as resolved.

@unional
Copy link
Contributor Author

unional commented Mar 24, 2024

No, the tsc process didn't crash.

Correct. Updated. 🍻

@RyanCavanaugh RyanCavanaugh added Suggestion An idea for TypeScript Awaiting More Feedback This means we'd like to hear from more people who would be helped by this feature labels Mar 25, 2024
@RyanCavanaugh
Copy link
Member

Trying to differentiate template and string literal types seems only possible by relying on weird implementation-detail corner cases and really isn't a great thing to try to offer.

@unional
Copy link
Contributor Author

unional commented Mar 25, 2024

Trying to differentiate template and string literal types seems only possible by relying on weird implementation-detail corner cases and really isn't a great thing to try to offer.

It's not just that. This also make it not possible to check for negative number from interaction type.

Speaking of which, it would be great if TS can provide those type utilities. I understand nowadays TS team don't want to add new type utils, but these are types closely related to the language, and like you said, most of them requires a lot of hackaround ways to get them to work.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Awaiting More Feedback This means we'd like to hear from more people who would be helped by this feature Suggestion An idea for TypeScript
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants