Add Awaited<T> to core library

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

This adds Awaited<T> as a mechanism to unwrap a type to its "awaited" type:

declaretypeAwaited<T>=Textends{then(onfulfilled: (value: infer U)=>any): any;} ? U :
Textends{then(...args: any[]): any;} ? never :
T;

Unlike the await expression, Awaited<T> does not recursively unwrap T as we do not support circular references in type aliases. It turns out recursive unwrap of T is mostly unnecessary if we modify the definition of Promise and PromiseLike to return a Promise<Awaited<TResult>>:

interfacePromise<T>{then<TResult1=T,TResult2=never>(onfulfilled?: ((value: Awaited<T>)=>TResult1)|null,onrejected?: ((reason: any)=>TResult2)|null): Promise<Awaited<TResult1|TResult2>>;}

This effectively flattens Promise<Promise<number>> as well as other nested definitions of Promise:

typeT1=Awaited<number>;// numbertypeT2=Awaited<Promise<number>>;// numbertypeT3=Awaited<Promise<Promise<number>>>;// number

The Awaited<T> type is a conditional type that provides the following conditions:

• If T has a then() method with a callback, infer the callback's first argument as U and use that as the result type.
• If T has a then() method without a callback, this is a non-promise "thenable" that can never be resolved, so the result type is never.
• Otherwise, the result type is T.

The benefit of this approach is more effective type inference from the onfulfilled callback passed to the then method of a Promise:

constp: Promise<number>= ...;constx=p.then(value=>{if(value>1)returnPromise.resolve("a");returnfalse;});// `x` has the type `Promise<"a" | false>`

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

This only solves the "Incorrect return types or errors with complex Promise chains" issue in #17077.

This does not solve the "Incorrect eager resolution of the "awaited type" for a type variable" issue.

[Klaus Meinhardt (ajafff)]

There's a difference to await if the on fulfilled callback has no parameter. await unwraps the promise to void while Awaited resolves to never AFAICT

[Wesley Wigham (weswigham)]

Do we figure that two levels deep is enough for most uses, and if anyone complains, we can always add more later?

[Daniel Rosenwasser (DanielRosenwasser)]

I guess if we currently don't do better than two levels, this will do for now.

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

If you are using the Promise definition from our libs then you won't need anything deeper. Once this is shipping we can modify the definitions in DT to use it as well. Per my examples above: type T3 = Awaited<Promise<Promise<number>>>; // number for any level of nesting using either Promise or PromiseLike.

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

We actually only need:

declaretypeAwaited<T>=TextendsAwaitable<infer U> ? U :
Textends{then(...args: any[]): any;} ? never :
T;

I seemed to have forgotten to stage an additional change to es5.d.ts.

[Wesley Wigham (weswigham)]

If this type isn't supposed to be extended/used, why not just inline the object type inside Awaited, below, since it's only used one?

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

I've considered that, but this is more readable when getting Quick Info on Awaited<T>. I don't even need Awaitable<T> if I inline it in the 2-3 places its used but that again reduces readability.

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

I have removed NonAwaitable.

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

I decided to also remove Awaitable<T> and inline the definition into Awaited<T>. The two other places where it was referenced were fine as PromiseLike<T>.

[Wesley Wigham (weswigham)]

It definitely seems better than the union with PromiseLike most positions took before from before, and we can definitely improve it in the future if we can.

We should audit how this affects definitelytyped, though.

[Igor Oleinikov (Igorbek)]

Nice! This is what @tycho01 suggested by leveraging #6606 but now with conditional types.

[Daniel Rosenwasser (DanielRosenwasser)]

"be definitely be"

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

Fixed

[Daniel Rosenwasser (DanielRosenwasser)]

I guess if we currently don't do better than two levels, this will do for now.

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

Klaus Meinhardt (@ajafff) I'll see if there's anything worth changing here. Despite the naming Awaited<T> isn't the same as an await expression as its currently only used in the definition of Promise (and PromiseLike).

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

There's a difference to await if the on fulfilled callback has no parameter. await unwraps the promise to void while Awaited resolves to never AFAICT

Klaus Meinhardt (@ajafff) actually, if the onfulfilled callback doesn't take a parameter then we report an error:

Sorry, this was incorrect. If the then() method doesn't take a callback we report an error. If the onfulfilled callback doesn't take a parameter then the resulting type is never:

asyncfunctionfoo(){lety1: {then(): any;};letx1=awaity1;// Type of 'await' operand must either be a valid promise or must not contain a callable 'then' member.lety2: {then(onfulfilled: ()=>any): any;};letx2=awaity2;// never}

The best approximation of an error we can provide here is to resolve the type to never, which is what we are doing.

[Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn)]

Can you run this on DefinitelyTyped before checking in? Any change to inference is likely to disturb things there and it would be nice to know how big the break is.

[Mohamed Hegazy (mhegazy)]

Please also run the RWC tests before submitting and ensure we have not introduced any regressions there either.

[Mohamed Hegazy (mhegazy)]

and user tests.

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

Mohamed Hegazy (@mhegazy), I plan to run this against RWC and DefinitelyTyped today. If all goes well, should we discuss this in the design meeting before taking the change?

[Mohamed Hegazy (mhegazy)]

If all goes well, should we discuss this in the design meeting before taking the change?

sure. We should discuss the while types as well to enable recursive unwrapping. Just had a chat with Anders Hejlsberg (@ahejlsberg) about a few minutes ago.

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

Mohamed Hegazy (@mhegazy) There are a few failing RWC tests after this that may actually be more correct. Most of them seem to be related to assignability, i.e.: Type 'Awaited<T> is not assignable to type 'T'. I will dig into these more tomorrow.

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

An example of one of the RWC errors is this:

Type 'Promise<Awaited<T>>' is not assignable to type 'Promise<T>'.
Type 'Awaited<T>' is not assignable to type 'T'.
Type 'U | (T extends { then(...args: any[]): any; } ? never : T)' is not assignable to type 'T'.
Type 'U' is not assignable to type 'T'.

I'd expect Promise<Awaited<T>> to be synonymous with Promise<T>, except that we see that both are type references to Promise and Awaited<T> and T are not comparable. If we had attempted a structural comparison of Promise we still would fail when instantiating the onfulfilled callback to then as we would end up comparing Awaited<Awaited<T>> to Awaited<T>, which still aren't comparable.

Anders Hejlsberg (@ahejlsberg), any suggestions? Is there something I can change in my definition to address this issue, or is there a change we can make in the checker that makes sense? Is this something that while types could address?

[kiara (KiaraGrouwstra)]

I got it to recursively unwrap under the present definition of Promise as follows:

typeAwaited<T>={'0': T;'1': Awaited<Textends{then(onfulfilled: (value: infer U)=>any): any;} ? U : 'wat'>;}[Textends{then(onfulfilled: (value: any)=>any): any;} ? '1' : '0'];letone: 1;one=null!asAwaited<1>>;// okone=null!asAwaited<Promise<1>>>;// okone=null!asAwaited<Promise<Promise<1>>>>;// ok

I'll admit it's clunky and silly -- I just used an object for the conditional to enable type recursion. But it works on master already, fwiw.

[Wesley Wigham (weswigham)]

@tycho01 Anders Hejlsberg (@ahejlsberg) on master I see this example:

typeAwaited<T>={'0': T;'1': Awaited<Textends{then(onfulfilled: (value: infer U)=>any): any;} ? U : never>;}[Textends{then(onfulfilled: (value: any)=>any): any;} ? '1' : '0'];functionfoo<T>(x: T){letone: T;letn1: Awaited<T>;letn2: Awaited<Awaited<T>>;letn3: Awaited<Awaited<Awaited<T>>>;one=n1;one=n2;one=n3;}

spin forever. Looks like an infinite loop in instnatiateType, during computeBaseConstraint.

[Ron Buckton (rbuckton)]

Wesley Wigham (@weswigham), I think that is the same issue as in #21611

[kiara (KiaraGrouwstra)]

Sorry, just remembered I'd yet to test for the original core issue, 1|Promise<1>. I've yet to make that work.
Also, I mistakenly said master, while I was on 2.8.0-dev.20180210.

[kiara (KiaraGrouwstra)]

I played around a bit more to get the union cases to work properly.

Conditional types already distributed over union types properly, so this came down to finding a way to make recursive types based on this, i.e. somehow wrapping the recursion so it'd allow it, using some useless no-op wrapper delaying execution to trick it.

I found a silly approach that appears to work: { '1': ... }[T extends number ? '1' : '1']. Here T is the generic we use to delay unwrapping, while number is some arbitrary condition -- the point is this wrapper is there during the recursion check, and vanishes once T is plugged in.

Using that to unwrap promises or to flatten nested array types:

// unwrap a Promise to obtain its return valueexporttypeAwaited<T>={'1': Textends{then(onfulfilled: (value: infer U)=>any): any;} ? Awaited<U> : T;}[Textendsnumber ? '1' : '1'];// Awaited<Promise<1 | Promise<2>>> // -> 1 | 2// flatten a structure of nested tuples/arrays into a flat array typeexporttypeFlatten<T>={'1': Flatten<TextendsArray<infer U> ? U : T>;}[Textendsnumber ? '1' : '1'];// Flatten<Array<1 | Array<2>>> // -> 1 | 2

[Eric Anderson (ericanderson)]

@tycho01 you rock my friend

[kiara (KiaraGrouwstra)]

Sorry, so far I'd tested through the compiler API, but through tsc I ran into a recursion related issue on that Flatten, now posted at #22018.

[Mohamed Hegazy (mhegazy)]

Does not look like this is something we can proceed on at the time being.closing the PR, but leaving the branch for further investigations.