setStore TypeScript Issue

I have a object store that has an interface like this:

export interface config {
  object1?: type1;
  object2?: type2;
  name?: string;
  ...
  id?: number;
}

export interface config {
  object1?: type1;
  object2?: type2;
  name?: string;
  ...
  id?: number;
}

type1 looks like this:

export interface type1 {
  channel?: number;
  role?: string;
  value?: number;
  present?: boolean;
}

export interface type1 {
  channel?: number;
  role?: string;
  value?: number;
  present?: boolean;
}

type2 looks like this:

export interface type2 {
  channel?: number;
  role?: string;
  value?: number;
  invert?: boolean;
}

export interface type2 {
  channel?: number;
  role?: string;
  value?: number;
  invert?: boolean;
}

Now I have a components where I pass in the following props struct

 {id: Part<config, keyof config>, setConfig: SetStoreFunction<config>}

 {id: Part<config, keyof config>, setConfig: SetStoreFunction<config>}

Within the component I make calls like:

props.setConfig(props.id, "role", "example")

props.setConfig(props.id, "role", "example")

(where props.id = "object1" or "object2") These do not create any typescript error. When I make a call like this:

props.setConfig(props.id, "invert", "example")

props.setConfig(props.id, "invert", "example")

(where props.id = "object2") I get an error like this:

Argument of type '"invert"' is not assignable to parameter of type 'Part<type1| type2, "channel" | "role" | "value">

Argument of type '"invert"' is not assignable to parameter of type 'Part<type1| type2, "channel" | "role" | "value">

The code runs fine without error, so I feel like I am not actually using setStore incorrectly. Why doesn't TypeScript recognize "invert" as valid Part in this situation? Is there any way I can fix this without supressing the TypeScript error?

11 Replies

peerreynders•5mo ago

Part<type1| type2, "channel" | "role" | "value">

… suggests to me that problem is inside the Part<T,K> type- I'm noticing how the second union only lists types that are shared between type1 and type2; role is in that union, invert is not.

PseudotronicsOP•5mo ago

Yeah, I noticed that too. I do not however know enough to say if this issue is a bug or not. Perhaps i will make an issue on the repo and see what people have to say. here is a full example of the error:

PseudotronicsOP•5mo ago

https://stackblitz.com/edit/solidjs-templates-xgprfg?file=src%2FApp.tsx

Bryan

StackBlitz

Solidjs - Templates (forked) - StackBlitz

Vite + solid templates

PseudotronicsOP•5mo ago

I am thinking that I may have to narrow the Part<T,K> to the specific interface being passed through. I don't know how to do that though.

peerreynders•5mo ago

TypeScript needs more help to understand your types:

type KeysOfType<R, T> = Exclude<
  {
    [key in keyof R]: Exclude<R[key], undefined> extends T ? key : never;
  }[keyof R],
  undefined
>;

type Type1Key = KeysOfType<config, { present?: boolean }>;
type Type2Key = KeysOfType<config, { invert?: boolean }>;

const Type1Comp: Component<{
  id: Type1Key;
  subConfig: type1;
  setConfig: SetStoreFunction<config>;
}> = (props) => {
  const changeConfig = () => {
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'channel', 9);
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'role', 'changed');
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'value', 50);
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'present', !props.subConfig.present);
  };

  return (
    <>
      <div>This works ({props.subConfig.present ? 'true' : 'false'})</div>
      <button onclick={changeConfig}>type1</button>
    </>
  );
};

const Type2Comp: Component<{
  id: Type2Key;
  subConfig: type2;
  setConfig: SetStoreFunction<config>;
}> = (props) => {
  const changeConfig = () => {
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'channel', 9);
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'role', 'changed');
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'value', 50);
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'invert', !props.subConfig.invert);
  };

  return (
    <>
      <div>So does this ({props.subConfig.invert ? 'true' : 'false'})</div>
      <button onclick={changeConfig}>type2</button>
    </>
  );
};

type KeysOfType<R, T> = Exclude<
  {
    [key in keyof R]: Exclude<R[key], undefined> extends T ? key : never;
  }[keyof R],
  undefined
>;

type Type1Key = KeysOfType<config, { present?: boolean }>;
type Type2Key = KeysOfType<config, { invert?: boolean }>;

const Type1Comp: Component<{
  id: Type1Key;
  subConfig: type1;
  setConfig: SetStoreFunction<config>;
}> = (props) => {
  const changeConfig = () => {
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'channel', 9);
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'role', 'changed');
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'value', 50);
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'present', !props.subConfig.present);
  };

  return (
    <>
      <div>This works ({props.subConfig.present ? 'true' : 'false'})</div>
      <button onclick={changeConfig}>type1</button>
    </>
  );
};

const Type2Comp: Component<{
  id: Type2Key;
  subConfig: type2;
  setConfig: SetStoreFunction<config>;
}> = (props) => {
  const changeConfig = () => {
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'channel', 9);
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'role', 'changed');
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'value', 50);
    props.setConfig(props.id, 'invert', !props.subConfig.invert);
  };

  return (
    <>
      <div>So does this ({props.subConfig.invert ? 'true' : 'false'})</div>
      <button onclick={changeConfig}>type2</button>
    </>
  );
};

Always keep in mind that TypeScript is structurally typed, not nominally typed.

PseudotronicsOP•5mo ago

I guess I don't understand why doing something like this:

type Type1Key = KeysOfType<config, type1>;

type Type1Key = KeysOfType<config, type1>;

Doesn't work. That is generally the behavior I want, but I don't know how to write KeysOfType to make that happen, or even if it is possible. Interesting. If I remove the optional attribute from the interfaces I can have it like that.

peerreynders•5mo ago

Perhaps you would be more comfortable with

type Type1Key = KeysOfType<config, Pick<type1, 'present'>>;
type Type2Key = KeysOfType<config, Pick<type2, 'invert'>>;

type Type1Key = KeysOfType<config, Pick<type1, 'present'>>;
type Type2Key = KeysOfType<config, Pick<type2, 'invert'>>;

With conditional types extends simply means:

the type on the left of is assignable to the one on the right.

if you look at your definition …

interface type1 {
  channel?: number;
  role?: string;
  value?: number;
  present?: boolean;
}

interface type1 {
  channel?: number;
  role?: string;
  value?: number;
  present?: boolean;
}

… where you have elected to make all members optional. Consequently:

type X = {} extends type1 ? 'yes' : 'no;' // type X = 'yes'
type Y = type2 extends type1 ? 'yes' : 'no;' // type Y = 'yes'
type Z = { channel?: number; invert?: boolean } extends type1 ? 'yes' : 'no;' // type Z = 'yes'
type A = { invert?: boolean } extends type1 ? 'yes' : 'no;' // type A = 'no'

type X = {} extends type1 ? 'yes' : 'no;' // type X = 'yes'
type Y = type2 extends type1 ? 'yes' : 'no;' // type Y = 'yes'
type Z = { channel?: number; invert?: boolean } extends type1 ? 'yes' : 'no;' // type Z = 'yes'
type A = { invert?: boolean } extends type1 ? 'yes' : 'no;' // type A = 'no'

Perhaps you would be shocked to realize:

let t1: type1 = {
  channel: 9,
  role: 'changed',
  value: 50,
  present: false,
};

const t2: type2 = {
  channel: 9,
  role: 'changed',
  value: 50,
  invert: false,
};

t1 = t2; // no error

let t1: type1 = {
  channel: 9,
  role: 'changed',
  value: 50,
  present: false,
};

const t2: type2 = {
  channel: 9,
  role: 'changed',
  value: 50,
  invert: false,
};

t1 = t2; // no error

Object assignment is not subject to excess property checking. Hence my warning about structural typing.

Documentation - Conditional Types

Create types which act like if statements in the type system.

peerreynders•5mo ago

playground

TS Playground - An online editor for exploring TypeScript and JavaS...

The Playground lets you write TypeScript or JavaScript online in a safe and sharable way.

PseudotronicsOP•5mo ago

Ah that makes sense. I think I may need to take a different approach to the structure of my project to avoid this. Thanks for all the help.

peerreynders•5mo ago

You may want to leverage discriminated unions.

Documentation - TypeScript for Functional Programmers

Learn TypeScript if you have a background in functional programming

PseudotronicsOP•5mo ago

It was simple enough to make the extends condition not be true for my application.

KeysOfType<config, type1>;

KeysOfType<config, type1>;

Works great after making the types be incompatible with one another. Thanks again for all of your insight.

Gaming

Programming

setStore TypeScript Issue