-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.6k
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
Fix merging of JS value & TS type decl #38936
Conversation
@@ -7870,7 +7870,7 @@ namespace ts { | |||
(resolvedSymbol || symbol).exports!.forEach((s, name) => { | |||
const exportedMember = members.get(name)!; | |||
if (exportedMember && exportedMember !== s) { | |||
if (s.flags & SymbolFlags.Value) { | |||
if (s.flags & SymbolFlags.Value && exportedMember.flags & SymbolFlags.Value) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@weswigham @sandersn when I was looking at this with Eli, this brought up a question as to why/how exportedType
(defined a few lines above—the type of require('./y.js')
in the test case) could have non-value members. In resolveAnonymousTypeMembers
, it copies the exports of the symbol to the type, but of course, the exports
of the .d.ts module includes a type symbol. It was surprising to me that resolveStructuredTypeMembers
can return an anonymous object type that has members that are also types. Is that normal?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
normal-ish -- it can easily happen when you merge a type-only namespace with an object literal:
var o = { x: 1 }
namespace o { export type y = number }
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I realized I was confusing anonymous type members with anonymous type properties, which are guaranteed to be values. With that confusion cleared up, this fix definitely looks correct. The possibility of type members was simply overlooked in the past.
Is this included in release? If so, which one? Can't find it. @elibarzilay |
Fixes #38383