Add isIntersectionConstituent to relation key #34789
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
isIntersectionConstituent controls whether relation checking performs excess property and common property checks. It is possible to fail a relation check with excess property checks turned on, cache the result, and then skip a relation check with excess property checks that would have succeeded. #33133 provides an example of such a program. Fixes #33133 the right way, so I reverted the fix at #33213 Fixes #34762 (by reverting #33213) Fixes #33944 -- I added the test from #34646
|
@typescript-bot perf test this |
|
Heya @sandersn, I've started to run the perf test suite on this PR at 2e0b451. You can monitor the build here. It should now contribute to this PR's status checks. Update: The results are in! |
This was referenced Oct 28, 2019
|
|
||
| ==== tests/cases/conformance/types/intersection/commonTypeIntersection.ts (2 errors) ==== | ||
| declare let x1: { __typename?: 'TypeTwo' } & { a: boolean }; | ||
| let y1: { __typename?: 'TypeOne' } & { a: boolean} = x1; // No error! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a copy & paste from the issue which expressed surprise that no error was issued here. There should be one (and now there is).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I should change the comment; it's "No error!" because the OP was surprised at the lack of error.
| @@ -118,7 +118,8 @@ tests/cases/conformance/types/intersection/intersectionAndUnionTypes.ts(37,1): e | |||
| ~ | |||
| !!! error TS2322: Type 'A & B' is not assignable to type '(A & C) | (A & D) | (B & C) | (B & D)'. | |||
| !!! error TS2322: Type 'A & B' is not assignable to type 'B & D'. | |||
| !!! error TS2322: Type 'A & B' is not assignable to type 'D'. | |||
| !!! error TS2322: Property 'd' is missing in type 'A & B' but required in type 'D'. | |||
| !!! related TS2728 tests/cases/conformance/types/intersection/intersectionAndUnionTypes.ts:4:15: 'd' is declared here. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting but not awful that we lose the line Type 'A & B' is not assignable to type 'D'.... and it’s nice that we get the elaboration into the missing properties.
|
@sandersn Here they are:Comparison Report - master..34789
System
Hosts
Scenarios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
weswigham
approved these changes
Oct 29, 2019
|
@typescript-bot test this |
|
The user suite test run you requested has finished and failed. I've opened a PR with the baseline diff from master. |
|
@typescript-bot run dt |
|
whew, the user test baselines were pretty messy! I merged to master so they should be better now. @typescript-bot user test this |
|
RWC: 5 elaborations in fp-ts change. They do so in a way that makes it embarrassingly obvious that we are linearising multiple elaborations. But otherwise they're fine. Also ha ha oh no I didn't actually merge the baseline updates until 5 minutes ago, so @typescript-bot user test this |
|
DT had no failures. |
|
User tests had no failures. |
|
@typescript-bot cherry-pick this to release-3.7 |
typescript-bot
pushed a commit
to typescript-bot/TypeScript
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2019
Component commits: 2e0b451 Add isIntersectionConstituent to relation key isIntersectionConstituent controls whether relation checking performs excess property and common property checks. It is possible to fail a relation check with excess property checks turned on, cache the result, and then skip a relation check with excess property checks that would have succeeded. microsoft#33133 provides an example of such a program. Fixes microsoft#33133 the right way, so I reverted the fix at microsoft#33213 Fixes microsoft#34762 (by reverting microsoft#33213) Fixes microsoft#33944 -- I added the test from microsoft#34646 14d7a44 Merge branch 'master' into add-isIntersectionConstituent-to-relation-key ea80362 Update comments in test 0764275 Merge branch 'master' into add-isIntersectionConstituent-to-relation-key
sandersn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2019
Component commits: 2e0b451 Add isIntersectionConstituent to relation key isIntersectionConstituent controls whether relation checking performs excess property and common property checks. It is possible to fail a relation check with excess property checks turned on, cache the result, and then skip a relation check with excess property checks that would have succeeded. #33133 provides an example of such a program. Fixes #33133 the right way, so I reverted the fix at #33213 Fixes #34762 (by reverting #33213) Fixes #33944 -- I added the test from #34646 14d7a44 Merge branch 'master' into add-isIntersectionConstituent-to-relation-key ea80362 Update comments in test 0764275 Merge branch 'master' into add-isIntersectionConstituent-to-relation-key
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
isIntersectionConstituent controls whether relation checking performs excess property and common property checks. It is possible to fail a relation check with excess property checks turned on, cache the result, and then skip a relation check with excess property checks that would have succeeded. #33133 provides an example of such a program.
Fixes #33133 the right way, so I reverted the fix at #33213
Fixes #34762 (by reverting #33213)
Fixes #33944 -- I added the test from #34646
@weswigham and I considered adding one or two new relations for excess property and common property checks, respectively, since excess property checks are almost as strict as the identity relation, and common property checks are less strict than the subtype relation. But this seems likely to result is a big fix.
Given the number of problems we've had with intersections and excess/common property checks, I think we should ship this fix eventually. I'm not sure if 3.7.x is the right time. We did ship #33213 in 3.6.4, however. My initial feeling is to vote for shipping in 3.7.2.