[bug] Prevent generic type information loss from type narrowing

[millsp]

TypeScript Version: 4.0.2

Search Terms: type narrowing, intersection, property, any, type loss, property widening, generic type narrowing, instanceof, typeof

Code

This shows how ts fails to preserve generic types after narrowing the type with instanceof:

class A<T> {
 constructor(public value: T) {}
}

const fn = <T>(value: T) => {
 if (value instanceof A) {
 return value;
 }

 return undefined;
};

const fn = wrap(new A(42));

if (test) {
 type valueType = typeof test.value; // any
}

The inferred result of wrap is T & A<any>. Because of any's (or unknown's) widening nature, there is type information loss (widening to unsafe any on properties).

Expected behavior:

Instead of using & in the inferred result, could we use a conditional type instead? At the moment, I do this by hand:

class A<T> {
 constructor(public value: T) {}
}

const fn = <T>(value: T) => {
 if (value instanceof A) {
 return value as any as Extract<T, A<any>>;
 }

 return undefined;
};

const test = fn(new A(42));

if (test) {
 type valueType = typeof test.value; // number
}

Actual behavior:

TypeScript creates intersections, causing generic property type loss.

Playground Link: https://www.typescriptlang.org/play?jsx=0&ts=4.0.2#code/N4Ag9GIA4E4PYCMA2BTAtgWAFAhAYyQEMBnYkAQQB4AVAPhGG11zzgDtiAXGAVz07gwAFFB7IAlnhAA3Qkh4oAXCGoBKBgF8mILVm2sOnEAHcYhKCAC8IGrSGz5Slesv1GOZuIBmIe3IUg4oaEbHgocD7k6u7MzDAonDwwbDL+KADc2ri6WSDxickgPGwAJiheQSglmR4aNfrsXCCcKE3WpuZCbCjGFEIALABMqqr1Ht6+LVzRuZwAnlAoqY7UC0vW84sRza2cAHQOCungkCFz2ro5WKAQ0HCk4shLxHDynOLs+kSkFLYMuQYuLx+IIRGIkJJlgplGpNBdsA1DCYzBZrLY-I4YS43LkJhiAkEuCEwtsov8PLF8kkUocliQQGcGWQAKIAD24hH4NAANL8zrRaDVYldKQlqUVSuVKtULmMWI0jFMjO0UV0en0hiM5YEfEIlTMKc01lCUKtFlYjVsfEqDmljrc2Dw0AgUDB4VhdEA

Related Issues:
Related from far #37993

[millsp]

Here's a more complex example to show how the inference could work. I'm "emulating" the behavior I would like so I'm using returnValue to illustrate how the types can be narrowed down with Extract and Exclude:

class A<T = unknown> {
 constructor(public value: T) {}
}

class B<T = unknown> {
 constructor(public value: T) {}
}

const wrap = <R>(fn: () => R) => {
 const returnValue0 = fn();

 if (returnValue0 instanceof A) {
 return returnValue0 as Extract<typeof returnValue0, A>;
 // type-safe narrowing with `A`
 }

 // since `A` was narrowed out, we exclude it out
 const returnValue1 = returnValue0 as Exclude<typeof returnValue0, A>;

 if (returnValue1 instanceof B) {
 return returnValue1 as Extract<typeof returnValue1, B>;
 // type-safe narrowing with `B`
 }

 // since `B` was narrowed out, we exclude it out
 const returnValue2 = returnValue1 as Exclude<typeof returnValue1, B>;

 // at this stage we know for sure that the type of `returnValue` is
 // `A` & `B` excluded: `Exclude<Exclude<R, A<unknown>>, B<unknown>>`

 return undefined;
};

https://www.typescriptlang.org/play?jsx=0&ts=4.0.2#code/MYGwhgzhAECCA8AVaBeaBXAdga0wewHdMA+aAbwFgAoaaYPTCAFwCd1gm8WAKAB3QBGIAJbBoANzAh0AUwBc0RAEpyAX2rqq1UJBgAhJKgw58RUpRp0GzNhy59BIsZOnzFKsps3brTaARYwXiN4ACVibgAzTAVuFRRSUPjzalp6Rj8WGSZ0FkwANSlZAAYjaLiAbmpU6GFI6G4snLzC11LhDLBMYBk8etgPGtom3MxoEZaimVLIaABRAA9WMA54JgBPXl76iYKp4oAaOGIqy1oAenPoDa2AWggwSJloTDAWFkIOgHN-YSYAC2gAANYECat5LJdoBAOj1gaD-LNXu9CDIACbQPDoJhHAjPGQLUDoNHPP6Y7E1dLMcbZUatWQARiMu3p02gs0WRJJa022xpzT2bSOsBO1UsdQaLKmTI6zC6PT60D0gzO-NGasmriZHKWgVWNz5Uq1Rz0otVUIN90ez2RHwI31+AOBejBlghFyuMO6zyBLsRMFtqIxWJx-nxhOkJNqfhDlN8GsFsgATMzaZrGeyYJzIzIeVtFUbGSazTUoWA-ADhDA5V9nnjoLhCNBIlxoblngDy9d-h3eZj6kDCzIgbUIKWriCRwAyZ0jglc9EKIHZ4m5lfc0LC+BYRtmYgm7cmQgkYiumq7YwkyIddGnVQVIA

[millsp]

While this could provide better type safety, it can become hard to read it. It would be nice for this to have subtraction types. So instead of having Exclude<Exclude<R, A<unknown>>, B<unknown>>, we would just have R -A -B.

[millsp]

I wrote a custom type-guard for instanceOf that has proper inference:

interface Class<P extends any[], O> extends Function { new (...args: P): O; }

type GetClassInstance<C extends Class<any[], any>> =
 C extends Class<any[], infer O> ? O : never;

const instanceOf = <A, C extends Class<unknown[], object>>(
 thing: A,
 Class: C,
): thing is A & GetClassInstance<C> => {
 return thing instanceof Class;
};

class A<T = unknown> {
 constructor(public value: T) {}
}

const fn = <T>(value: T) => {
 if (instanceOf(value, A)) {
 return value;
 }

 return undefined;
};

const test = fn(new A(42));

if (test) {
 type valueType = typeof test.value; // number
}

test.value is now of type number instead of any.

However, it is still not what I would like to achieve, the previous example is not passing.

https://www.typescriptlang.org/play?jsx=0&ts=4.0.2#code/JYOwLgpgTgZghgYwgAgMIBs4GcsB4AKyEAHpCACZbJwgCeA2gLoA0yA8gHxGkQVUBiAVxAIwwAPYhkAb2QgIAd2QAKAHTq4UAOZYAXMnwBKfWwDcyAL4BYAFC2wtAA4oA4hDAZsWAJIgsYGiRcVG4ySjRMHFwaBhZqOg4uAF5bZDRQ3nDPKJimVlAYaHYuAH52ZH15ADdoU1tbBEl-ZFB-QIg2GGQk5FwAQVYQkjCqbLxhAGsQcQUQPORxACMAKwhRROVU5DAAC1AtfQGtsf1UZltjbb2QLRaqPuQAMmQ3D0ifPwCRCGDkrmktlB3IIoFJdvsWp92uIumM6jYLPCEO9kH1cAAVbrISbTWb-LaNT5QQSicRQZSOQSLdDABDIKpwdCCCD6dGGGTWBH1GyE5oKKBwRxYjEcZQMpks5Bs7r4mxpYBdZStL5ITpixnM1h9QzsgFytLIIFgEFScXM+FpTmA4Gg7EUCAwUAQcjwxHc3lgbYQZo9fmC5TyJR9ZQAFgATDr4bYFSpIP5dVsHM56RqIOinCgekmIDCvf5VGaIOYAPTFuSCAC2i2gtgsQA

[millsp]

I got a step closer to the desired result with. It fully preserves type information.

type Class<
 P extends readonly unknown[] = readonly unknown[],
 R = unknown
> = {
 new (...args: P): R;
};

type InstanceOf<C extends Class> =
 C extends Class<readonly unknown[], infer O>
 ? O
 : never;
type Select<U, A> =
 U extends A
 ? U
 : never;

type Narrow<A, C extends Class> =
 any extends A
 ? Select<InstanceOf<C>, A>
 : unknown extends A
 ? A & InstanceOf<C>
 : Select<A, InstanceOf<C>>;

const instanceOf = <A, C extends Class>(
 thing: A,
 Class: C,
 ): thing is Narrow<A, C> => {
 return thing instanceof Class;
};

To improve the developer experience, I believe that we would wise to have subtract types:

const fn = <T>(thing: T) => {
 if (thing instanceof A) return 'A';

 // typeof thing = T -A
 if (thing instanceof B) return 'B';

 // typeof thing = T -A -B
 if (thing instanceof C) return 'C';

 return thing; // T -A -B -C
};

This becomes especially interesting if T is a union. That subtracted information can be passed down in the whole program.

[RyanCavanaugh]

I'm just going to respond to the OP here because I'm not sure what's going on with the pages of comments that follow.

What you should write is

class A<T> {
 constructor(public value: T) {}
}

const wrap = <T,>(value: T) => {
 if (value instanceof A) {
 return value as A<T>; // <-- type assertion
 }

 return undefined;
};

because you're assuming that any A is an A<T>, even though this isn't true.

[millsp]

Thanks Ryan Cavanaugh (@RyanCavanaugh) for your fast reply

class A<T> {
 constructor(public value: T) {}
 }

const fn = <T,>(value: T) => {
 if (value instanceof A) {
 return value;
 }

 return undefined;
};

const a = new A(42);

const test = fn(a);

We do know for sure that a is an instance of A, why intersect it with A<any>? Wouldn't it make sense to intersect with A<unknown>? Maybe I'm missing some edge case, is there a reason for this?

type testType0 = (A<number> & A<unknown>)['value']; // number
type testType1 = (A<number> & A<any>)['value']; // any

[millsp]

because you're assuming that any A is an A<T>, even though this isn't true.

I don't understand why this is not the case. If A<number> is A<any>, why can't we safely say that the return value is A<number>?

[jcalz]

Ryan Cavanaugh (@RyanCavanaugh) I think return value as A<T> is not the intent, since that would make wrap(new A("hello")) return an A<A<string>> instead of A<string>.

As far as I can tell this issue is a duplicate of #4742 or #28560, with the comments in #30161 being particularly relevant. If you have a value x of type X, and are checking x instanceof C where the instance side of C is generic like C<T>, right now that narrows x to X & C<any> which, while true enough, is often not useful. You really want something like the union of all possible specifications of C<T> that overlap with X.

[millsp]

Oh sorry, I completely omitted to rename wrap from another example. It does not actually wrap, that might have led to the confusion. Thanks Joe Calzaretta (@jcalz) for linking all the relevant issues 🙌 We can mark this a duplicate

[typescript-bot]

This issue has been marked 'Working as Intended' and has seen no recent activity. It has been automatically closed for house-keeping purposes.