Every time I write as Foo in TypeScript, I feel the weight of defeat.
There's one scenario where this feeling is particularly intense: when a function takes a parameter that depends on which "mode" is active.
clearer with some example code:
type Provider = "PROVIDER A" | "PROVIDER B";
type ProviderAOpts = { ... };
type ProviderBOpts = { ... };
function connect(provider: Provider, options: ProviderAOpts | ProviderBOpts) {
switch (provider) {
case "PROVIDER A":
// options is ProviderAOpts
case "PROVIDER B":
// options is ProviderBOpts
}
}
(I tried to use more realistic names rather than foo, goo, dog and cat).
If you’ve spent some time with TypeScript, you might suspect we used to handle this with as ProviderAOpts, as ProviderBOpts.
But there’s a time you slam your fist on the table and claim: "No more!"
1. What doesn't work
The first thing that always comes to my mind in these cases is to use function overloading:
function connect(provider: "PROVIDER A", options: ProviderAOpts): void;
function connect(provider: "PROVIDER B", options: ProviderBOpts): void;
function connect(provider: Provider, options: ProviderAOpts | ProviderBOpts) {
switch (provider) {
case "PROVIDER A":
// (options as ProviderAOpts) ❌
case "PROVIDER B":
// (options as ProviderBOpts) ❌
}
}
Which doesn't work. The function signature is not inferred correctly. The options parameter is always ProviderAOpts | ProviderBOpts. which will resolve to the common union.
Ts doesn't link both parameters correctly.
2. What works but isn't linking the parameters
The next tool I try are Type Predicates:
type ConnectOptions = ProviderAOpts | ProviderBOpts;
function isAOptions(options: ConnectOptions): options is ProviderAOpts {
return (options as ProviderAOpts).$$$ !== undefined;
}
function isBOptions(options: ConnectOptions): options is ProviderBOpts {
return (options as ProviderBOpts).$$$ !== undefined;
}
function connect(provider: Provider, options: ConnectOptions) {
switch (provider) {
case "PROVIDER A":
if (isAOptions(options)) {
...
}
case "PROVIDER B":
if (isBOptions(options)) {
...
}
}
...
}
But honestly, we did not solve anything. We just moved the as under the rug 🧹. Introduced extra ifs and, we are still not linking the parameters.
3. What doesn't work and makes me cry
Generics. I tried to use generics to link the parameters. Doesn't work:
function connect<T extends Provider>(
provider: T,
options: T extends "PROVIDER A" ? ProviderAOpts : ProviderBOpts
) {
switch (provider) {
case "PROVIDER A":
// (options as ProviderAOpts) ❌
case "PROVIDER B":
// (options as ProviderBOpts) ❌
}
}
I tried so hard and got so far
But in the end, it doesn't even matter
I had to fall to lose it all
But in the end, it doesn't even matter
🧑🎤
4. What does work but forces us to change the function signature
Modifying the opts parameters adding the provider type does the trick:
type Provider = "PROVIDER A" | "PROVIDER B";
type ProviderOptsBase = {
provider: Provider;
}
type ProviderAOpts = ProviderOptsBase & {
provider: "PROVIDER A";
...;
};
type ProviderBOpts = ProviderOptsBase & {
provider: "PROVIDER B";
...;
};
function connect(options: ConnectOptions) {
switch (options.provider) {
case "PROVIDER A":
// options is ProviderAOpts ✅
case "PROVIDER B":
// options is ProviderBOpts ✅
}
}
This is the most common solution, but it's not always possible to change the function signature. Or maybe you just don't want to. Matter of principles 🫖.
Twitter to the rescue
Thanks to Mateusz Burzyński (@AndaristRake) and Lenz Weber (@phry)
we can get to... 🥁🥁
5. What does work: the destructured tuple
type Provider = "PROVIDER A" | "PROVIDER B";
type ProviderAOpts = { ... };
type ProviderBOpts = { ... };
function connect(
...[provider, options]:
| ["PROVIDER A", ProviderAOpts]
| ["PROVIDER B", ProviderBOpts]
) {
switch (provider) {
case "PROVIDER A":
// options is ProviderAOpts ✅
case "PROVIDER B":
// options is ProviderBOpts ✅
...
}
}
connect("PROVIDER A", { ... });
connect("PROVIDER B", { ... });
^ autocomplete works ✅
So the thing is that we are destructuring a tuple (array) with the exact types we want.
The only downside, if we're picky, adding more pairs to the tuple... we can extract a generic type here:
6. What does work: generalized tuple solution
type Provider = "PROVIDER A" | "PROVIDER B";
type ProviderAOpts = { ... };
type ProviderBOpts = { ... };
type ProviderOpts = {
"PROVIDER A": ProviderAOpts;
"PROVIDER B": ProviderBOpts;
};
// solves to
// ["PROVIDER A", ProviderAOpts] | ["PROVIDER B", ProviderBOpts]
type ConnectOptions = {
[K in keyof ProviderOpts]: [K, ProviderOpts[K]];
}[keyof ProviderOpts];
function connect(...[provider, options]: ConnectOptions) {
switch (provider) {
case "PROVIDER A":
// options is ProviderAOpts ✅
case "PROVIDER B":
// options is ProviderBOpts ✅
...
}
}
connect("PROVIDER A", { ... });
connect("PROVIDER B", { ... });
^ autocomplete works ✅
7. TL;DR. COPY PASTE, THANKS
type Provider = "PROVIDER A" | "PROVIDER B";
type ProviderAOpts = { ... };
type ProviderBOpts = { ... };
type ProviderOpts = {
"PROVIDER A": ProviderAOpts;
"PROVIDER B": ProviderBOpts;
};
// aux type to extract the key and the options from ProviderOpts
type KeyOpts<T> = {
[K in keyof T]: [K, T[K]];
}[keyof T];
function connect(...[provider, options]: KeyOpts<ProviderOpts>) {
switch (provider) {
case "PROVIDER A":
// options is ProviderAOpts ✅
case "PROVIDER B":
// options is ProviderBOpts ✅
...
}
}
connect("PROVIDER A", { ... });
connect("PROVIDER B", { ... });
^ autocomplete works ✅
Thanks to Mateusz and Lenz for the help 🙏.
thanks for reading 💙.
Top comments (3)
🤔 Somehow I still like that the original code (with as) is less complex.
What do you think? When would you still prefer the original version with “as”?
Thanks for commenting!
Every time you use
as, you're essentially bypassing Typescript's type inference system... that's why I try to avoid it, I consider it more of a "last resort Technique"In this case, it's frustrating that ts inference doesn't handle this out of the box. It feels like you're forced to hack the language.
...
I get what you mean. Which do you prefer—suppressing ts for a line or going with a hacky solution?
in this case, I'm using
#4honestly. But now i have#7as ultimateSharingan🧿I think it depends, if you want to go fast and need to get things done, sometimes suppressing/forcing TS is what I prefer (in contrast to loosing a couple of hours).
But if the code should be super clean, e.g., for a library or something you reuse often, I think it pays to do it properly.