`resolve()` of a promise accepts `undefined` when explicit generic type is specified

[soswow]

I am confused. It well can be the result of ECMAScript spec or something, but all this doesn't make sense to me.
TypeScript Version: 3.7.x-dev.201xxxxx
Search Terms: promise undefined and I looked through all of the 5 pages + looked through FAQ
Code:

type TypeA = {
 value: number;
}
const test = (): Promise<TypeA> => {
 return new Promise<TypeA>(resolve => {
 resolve(undefined); // Result of test() is Promise of TypeA. I return a promise that is resolved with undefined and it's ok for some reason.
 });
};

const test2 = (): Promise<TypeA> => {
 return Promise.resolve(undefined);
};
test().then(typeAInstance => {
 // At this point here `typeAInstance` is of type TypeA and not! of `TypeA | undefined`
 console.log(typeAInstance.value.toFixed())
});

Expected behavior:
Both Functions should prevent me from doing writing stupid code at compile time.

Actual behavior:
Only second one does prevent me. First one allows runtime error to happened in the end.

Playground Link: http://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?ts=3.8.0-dev.20200211&ssl=1&ssc=1&pln=14&pc=4#code/C4TwDgpgBAKuEEEoF4oG8BQUoDcCGANgK4QBcUAdkQLYBGEATgNwYC+GAxgPYUDOwUYBH4ooACgCU5AAoMu1AJa8IAHjiQEAPhTbM2BhGBEGFShADuUWfKWr1iTWIO8uBHNGS6s2KM9fuxIgoAEwgAMwUKCGCJFmxWWLYWbj4BIX4AJlFJGTlFZTV4LR10b31DY1NrfIgAOj83CECQ8MjoxNYWdOBJWuAACwgKMVANAElUvAoODy9sFJcCOoIuAHMRoon+KZna-GI64C4AMQUAD2jJCTZYoA

Related Issues:

I don't understand where this undefined as one of the potential argument types is coming from:

My lib.es5.d.ts contains this:

declare type PromiseConstructorLike = new <T>(executor: (resolve: (value?: T | PromiseLike<T>) => void, reject: (reason?: any) => void) => void) => PromiseLike<T>;

My lib.es2015.promise.d.ts contains this:

new <T>(executor: (resolve: (value?: T | PromiseLike<T>) => void, reject: (reason?: any) => void) => void): Promise<T>;

[soswow]

As Rifat Nabi (@torifat) pointed out, it does complain appropriately in Flow.
https://flow.org/try/#0PQKgBAAgZgNg9gdzCYAoVAXAngBwKZgAqueAgmALxgDeqYYAbgIYwCueAXGAHasC2AIzwAnANyoAvqgDGcbgGcMYDHkWUwACgCUXAArC4fAJby8AHmL5SAPkq3a9YXgyth3HniT7DJ85bLWGk7ycDAMBBT2dPRgwaHhGqzcACZ4UEbceMla4vQSOZLisgpKKooATOraegbGphYkNnY00Y7Oru7edXgAdHFheIkpaRlZBRLiZRjaPRgAFnjcGthWAJIlTNzSEVH0xSEwvfAA5suN64qb2z3MbL0YcABiRgAeWdpakjlAA

[jcalz]

duplicate of #22040

---

I don't understand where this undefined as one of the potential argument types is coming from

It's an optional argument, and therefore accepts undefined.

[soswow]

Joe Calzaretta (@jcalz) yeah, seems to be a duplicate. This is really a shame. I raised it because this caused an issue in production for me just now and I was really surprised TS can't handle such a simple case.
If resolve by default allows an optional argument, then all the .then callbacks should be also expected to be called with undefined regardless of the generic type defined.

[andrewbranch]

This came up recently in our team chat and it was surprising to several of us. According to Ron Buckton (@rbuckton):

Because we (at the time) had no way to do new Promise<void>(resolve => resolve()). Now we do (because void parameters are optional), so we can probably tighten up that definition.

So I’m going to leave this open so we can revisit it.

[jcalz]

crosslinking to #27522
will this run afoul of #29131 ?