Use unknown instead of any for additional properties type

[jmorel]

What are the steps to reproduce this issue?

Create an openapi spec with an object that has additionalProperties set to true:

EmptyObjectWithAdditionalProperties:
  type: object
  additionalProperties: true

What happens?

The generated type will be

export interface EmptyObjectWithAdditionalProperties {
    [key: string]: any;
}

What were you expecting to happen?

I would have liked to have unkown instead of any:

export interface EmptyObjectWithAdditionalProperties {
    [key: string]: unknown;
}

Having any disables all type checks on these values, and since any propagates it can hide errors pretty far in the codebase that could have been caught otherwise.

Having unknown forces the developer to handle all possible type cases. If they decide to then cast the values as any it's then their choice but by default they'll have a strictly typed codebase.

Any logs, error output, etc?

…

Any other comments?

We could make this configurable of course, but if not I have a small PR ready replacing the hardcoded [key: string]: any with [key: string]: unknown.

What versions are you using?

Operating System: …
Package Version: v6.30.2
Browser Version: …

[ezequiel]

Totally agree with this change. any is too dangerous.

I think this is the correct file: https://github.com/anymaniax/orval/blob/master/packages/core/src/getters/object.ts

Simply replace all instances of [key: string]: any with [key: string]: unknown

[melloware]

PR is welcome.

[jmorel]

I opened #1466

[jordan-rigo]

Is it configurable? Is there anyway I can override this in a mutator?
I dont like it that I have to cast the type

How do you guys handle this in a nice way?

[ezequiel]

Is it configurable? Is there anyway I can override this in a mutator? I dont like it that I have to cast the type

Not configurable. Asserting is a superior alternative because any will mask potential errors.

Previously doing something like this was fine: object.a.b.c, but this was dangerous because none of those properties are typechecked given object.a was type any.

You must narrow the type or assert it. I usually prefer to go with what's simplest given the situation

Further reading:

• https://mariusschulz.com/blog/the-unknown-type-in-typescript#narrowing-the-unknown-type
• https://mariusschulz.com/blog/the-unknown-type-in-typescript#using-type-assertions-with-unknown

[jordan-rigo]

Is it possible to override the input or write a output.override.transformer for example?
I'd like to narrow the unknown type at a higher level. Basically during the model creation, so the correct types are cast and not unkown.

@ezequiel