Too-permissive assignability with complex discriminated unions

[Harpush]

I was trying to add type safety to some model i have and it seems to sometimes work in a weird way.

Code

export enum FilterType {
 String = 'string',
 Number = 'number',
 Boolean = 'boolean'
}

export interface FilterTypeToLiteralTypeMap {
 [FilterType.String]: string;
 [FilterType.Number]: number;
 [FilterType.Boolean]: boolean;
}

export type AllowedFilterTypeLiteralTypes = FilterTypeToLiteralTypeMap[FilterType];

export type Values<T> = T[keyof T];

export type FilterTypeFromLiteralType<
 T extends AllowedFilterTypeLiteralTypes
> = Exclude<
 Values<
 {
 [key in FilterType]: FilterTypeToLiteralTypeMap[key] extends T
 ? key
 : never;
 }
 >,
 never
>;

export interface Filterable<T extends AllowedFilterTypeLiteralTypes> {
 isFilterable: true;
 filterType: FilterTypeFromLiteralType<T>;
}

export interface NotFilterable {
 isFilterable: false;
}

export type FilterableTrait<T extends AllowedFilterTypeLiteralTypes> =
 | Filterable<T>
 | NotFilterable;

What i did here is created an enum and mapped each entry to a literal type. That way when using the FilterableTrait interface it can be either Filterable or NotFilterable and if filterable the FilterType is decided based on the given type.

Some usages that work

// Errors correctly
export const a: FilterableTrait<string> = {
 isFilterable: true,
 filterType: FilterType.Number
};

// Works correctly
export const b: FilterableTrait<string> = {
 isFilterable: true,
 filterType: FilterType.String
};

export const c: FilterableTrait<string> = {
 isFilterable: false,
 filterType: FilterType.String // Errors correctly
};

// Errors correctly
export const d: FilterableTrait<string> | FilterableTrait<number> = {
 isFilterable: true,
 filterType: FilterType.Boolean
};

// Works correctly
export const e: FilterableTrait<string> | FilterableTrait<number> = {
 isFilterable: true,
 filterType: FilterType.Number
};

The problem starts when i do this

export const f: FilterableTrait<string> | FilterableTrait<number> = {
 isFilterable: false,
 filterType: FilterType.Number // No error? Auto complete doesn't add this as an option but it compiles
};

A few notes here:

1. If i change Filterable to be filterType: FilterTypeFromLiteralType<string> instead of filterType: FilterTypeFromLiteralType<T> it works... it doesnt work just when i use the generic type.
2. I know i can use

export const g: FilterableTrait<string | number> = {
 isFilterable: false,
 filterType: FilterType.Number
};

and it will work but my actual use case requires me to use something like

export const h:
 | ({ type: '1' } & FilterableTrait<string>)
 | ({ type: '2' } & FilterableTrait<number>) = {
 type: '2',
 isFilterable: true,
 filterType: FilterType.Number
};

Which means i can't use the above

Expected behavior:
Compilation error

Actual behavior:
Compiles successfully

Playground Link: http://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?ts=3.7-Beta&ssl=31&ssc=3&pln=17&pc=1#

[joshuafairchild1]

Would something like the following work for your use case?

// Note the I removed the usage of `Exclude` from this type, as it wasn't actually doing anything,
// `never` type is always excluded from union types
export type FilterTypeFromLiteralType<
 T extends AllowedFilterTypeLiteralTypes
> = Values<
 {
 [K in FilterType]: FilterTypeToLiteralTypeMap[K] extends T
 ? K
 : never
 }
>

interface TypedFilter<T extends AllowedFilterTypeLiteralTypes> {
 filterType: FilterTypeFromLiteralType<T>
}

type FilterableTrait<T extends AllowedFilterTypeLiteralTypes, B extends boolean = true> =
 { isFilterable: B } extends infer F
 ? B extends true
 ? (F & TypedFilter<T>)
 : F
 : never

Using this new definition, we get the following (expected) errors when assigning a value to a union of FilterableTraits:

const f: FilterableTrait<string> | FilterableTrait<number> = {
 isFilterable: false, // Error: Type 'false' is not assignable to type 'true'
 filterType: FilterType.Number
}

const f0: FilterableTrait<string, false> | FilterableTrait<number, false> = {
 isFilterable: false,
 filterType: FilterType.Number // Error: 'filterType' does not exist in type '{ isFilterable: false }'
}

// No errors
const f1: FilterableTrait<string, false> | FilterableTrait<number, false> = {
 isFilterable: false
}

This solution does have a large difference with the original implementation, in that whether or not a FilterableTrait should actually have a filterType associated with it is driven by the second generic passed to FilterableTrait.

[Harpush]

Joshua Fairchild (@joshuafairchild1) Well not really... The idea is when writing i want a "double discriminate union" - which means that given this:

export const h:
 | ({ type: '1' } & FilterableTrait<string>)
 | ({ type: '2' } & FilterableTrait<number>) = {
 type: '2',
 isFilterable: true,
 filterType: FilterType.Number
};

It should be able to discriminate the FilterableTrait based on the type and then discriminate based on isFilterable if i can add filterType or not.
In what you wrote FilterableTrait is no more a discriminate union and i need to be explicit in the types about whether its filterable or not and not through the isFilterable value assignment.

[sandersn]

I think this example gets the essence of the problem without relying on too many other features. Let me know what you think.

export const ff:
 | { isFilterable: true, filterType: "string" }
 | { isFilterable: true, filterType: "number" }
 | { isFilterable: false } = {
 isFilterable: false,
 filterType: "number" // No error? Auto complete doesn't add this as an option but it compiles
};

This seems similar to other union assignability problems we've had. I'll look around for prior art.

[Harpush]

Nathan Shively-Sanders (@sandersn) Seems like the same problem... One thing to note (maybe not relevant as i dont know how the internal compiler works) is that in my case it uses another generic interface and it seems to mess up the union and intersection relation. Anyway considering what you wrote is the real issue underneath - please make sure generics like in my example will work too.
One more thing is that in my case it is a bit more complicated as i have the boolean as first discriminate which affects the second discriminate and both of them affect another property - whether it can exist and with which type

[sandersn]

First, notice that, without excess property checking, { isFilterable: false, filterType: "number" } is actually assignable to { isFilterable: false }. So we rely on excess property checking to reject this assignment.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because both isFilterable and filterType are discriminable properties; true | false and "string" | "number" respectively. We would like the compiler to choose just isFilterable, but the excess property check doesn't check the powerset of properties to find the best discriminant set. Instead it uses a quadratic algorithm I developed with Wesley Wigham (@weswigham) and Jack Williams (@jack-williams). This algorithm requires a property to be present in all constituents of the target union AND for its type to be assignable. Neither isFilterable nor filterType succeed: isFilterable: false isn't assignable to the first two constituents, and filterType isn't present in the third constituent.

I don't think it's possible to do better without taking exponential time here.

A workaround is to add filterType to the last constituent so that isFilterable succeeds as a discriminant and excess property checking works. This works in your original example with NotFilterable too.