Array.isArray type narrows to any[] for ReadonlyArray<T>

[jinder]

TypeScript Version: 2.4.1

Code

declare interface T {
 foo: string;
}

const immutable: T | ReadonlyArray<T> = [];

if (Array.isArray(immutable)) {
 const x = immutable; // Any[] - Should be ReadonlyArray<T>
} 

const mutable: T | Array<T> = [];

if (Array.isArray(mutable)) {
 const x = mutable; // T[]
} 

Expected behavior: Should type narrow to ReadonlyArray<T>, or at the very least T[].

Actual behavior: Narrows to any[]. Doesn't trigger warnings in noImplicitAny mode either.

[jcalz]

If you add the following declaration to overload the declaration of isArray():

interface ArrayConstructor {
 isArray(arg: ReadonlyArray<any> | any): arg is ReadonlyArray<any> 
}

the post-checked mutable is still narrowed to T[] and the post-checked immutable is narrowed to ReadonlyArray<T> as desired.

I'm not sure if this or similar would be an acceptable addition to the standard typing libraries or not, but you can at least use it yourself.

[jinder]

Joe Calzaretta (@jcalz) yes, I think these overloads should be in the standard library. There are a few other scenarios where ReadonlyArray isn't accepted where it should be (for example Array.concat).

[vidartf]

The same narrowing problem also exists for this check:

if (immutable instanceof Array) {
 const x = immutable; // Any[] - Should be ReadonlyArray<T>
} 

I'm not sure if there exists a similar workaround for this.

[jcalz]

I would probably do this if I wanted a workaround:

interface ReadonlyArrayConstructor {
 new(arrayLength?: number): ReadonlyArray<any>;
 new <T>(arrayLength: number): ReadonlyArray<T>;
 new <T>(...items: T[]): ReadonlyArray<T>;
 (arrayLength?: number): ReadonlyArray<any>;
 <T>(arrayLength: number): ReadonlyArray<T>;
 <T>(...items: T[]): ReadonlyArray<T>;
 isArray(arg: any): arg is ReadonlyArray<any>;
 readonly prototype: ReadonlyArray<any>;
}
const ReadonlyArray = Array as ReadonlyArrayConstructor;

And then later

if (ReadonlyArray.isArray(immutable)) {
 const x = immutable; // ReadonlyArray<T>
} 
if (immutable instanceof ReadonlyArray) {
 const x = immutable; // ReadonlyArray<T>
} 

but of course, since at runtime there's no way to tell the difference between ReadonlyArray and Array, you would have to be careful to use the right one in the right places in your code. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[jinder]

Vidar Tonaas Fauske (@vidartf) As instanceof works at runtime, I'm not sure that should narrow to ReadonlyArray. You're asking if the runtime representation of that is an array, which is true. So I'd expect it to narrow to Array<T>, not ReadonlyArray<T>.

[vidartf]

Jinder Sidhu (@jinder) I didn't state it explicitly, but my code was meant to be based on yours (same variables and types), so it should already know that it was T | ReadonlyArray<T>. As such, instanceof should narrow it to ReadonlyArray<T>.

[NN---]

What is the best workaround here ?
I just ended up with ugly type assertion:

function g(x: number) {}

function f(x: number | ReadonlyArray<number>) {
 if (!Array.isArray(x)) { 
 g(x as number); // :(
 }
}

[adrianheine]

I think this is fixed in 3.0.3.

[jinder]

Adrian Heine né Lang (@adrianheine) doesn't seem to be for me.