I'm trying to write a function that takes an object and a (string) key, then operates on a property of the object. This is easy:
function f<T extends any, K extends keyof T>(obj: T, key: K) {
const prop = obj[key]; // prop is typed as T[K]
}
I would like to constrain the key passed to the call, at compile-time, based on the type of T[K]
. I tried this:
function f<T extends any, K extends keyof T>(obj: T, key: T[K] extends number ? K : never) {
obj[key] = 5; // error, "is not assignable to" etc
}
prop
is typed as T[T[K] extends number ? K : never]
which reads to me like it should collapse to just number
, but it does not.
My goal is to be sure that obj[key]
is typed as number
, inside the function, and also have calls like f({a: true}, "a")
flagged as an error. Is this possible? I thought I might need to move the constraint from the function parameter declaration, to the generic parameter declaration, but I couldn't figure out the syntax.
ETA yet again: Playground example -- updated to try the approach suggested by @reactgular in a comment:
type AssignableKeys<T, ValueType> = {
[Key in keyof T]-?: ValueType extends T[Key] | undefined ? Key : never
}[keyof T];
type PickAssignable<T, ValueType> = Pick<T, AssignableKeys<T, ValueType>>;
type OnlyAssignable<T, ValueType> = {
[Key in AssignableKeys<T, ValueType>]: ValueType
};
interface Foo {
a: number;
b: string;
nine: 9;
whatevs: any;
}
type FooNumberKeys = AssignableKeys<Foo, number>; // "a" | "whatevs"
type CanAssignNumber = PickAssignable<Foo, number>; // { a: number; whatevs: any; }
type DefinitelyJustNumbers = OnlyAssignable<Foo, number>; // { a: number; whatevs: number; }
function f1<T>(obj: OnlyAssignable<T, number>, key: keyof OnlyAssignable<T, number>) {
obj[key] = Math.random(); // Assignment is typed correctly, good
}
function f2<T extends object, K extends keyof PickAssignable<T, number>>(obj: T, key: K) {
obj[key] = Math.random(); // Uh oh, Type 'number' is not assignable to type 'T[K]'.(2322)
}
declare const foo: Foo;
f1(foo, "a"); // Allowed, good
f1(foo, "whatevs"); // Allowed, good
f1(foo, "nine"); // Uh oh, should error, but doesn't!
f1(foo, "b"); // Error, good
f2(foo, "a"); // Allowed, good
f2(foo, "whatevs"); // Allowed, good
f2(foo, "nine"); // Error, good
f2(foo, "b"); // Error, good
In the Playground, DefinitelyJustNumbers
shows a tooltip of {a: number; whatevs: number}
-- anything that I can assign a number
to is explicitly typed as number
. This fixes the assignment inside the function body, but fails to detect the fact that nine
is only a subset of number and so should not be allowed.
CanAssignNumber
shows a tooltip of {a: number; whatevs: any}
, correctly excluding nine
because it's not assignable to number
. This looks good, but still doesn't fix assignment inside the function f2
.
Just use a type assertion, your concern should be the call site, that is typed correctly and gives you errors where it should. The implementation can't really be typed correctly if you want to assign a specific value inside the function.
You can make the result of
T[K]
extend number, for example but adding a constraint toT
ofRecord<K, number>
, but we still not be able to assign concrete values toobj[key]
Playground Link
The reason this is so, is the last example
f(other, "a", 1)
. Herea
inother
has type1
, which does extendnumber
, sof(other, "a", 1)
is a valid call tof
, but inside we want to assignother[key] = 5
. This would break the type ofother
. The problem here is that there is no way so specify thatT[K]
has an upper constraint ofnumber
just a lower constraint.