Skip to content

Fix the error when use spread arguments twice - #33069

Closed
rChaser53 (rchaser53) wants to merge 2 commits into
microsoft:masterfrom
rchaser53:fix-spread-arguments-twice
Closed

Fix the error when use spread arguments twice#33069
rChaser53 (rchaser53) wants to merge 2 commits into
microsoft:masterfrom
rchaser53:fix-spread-arguments-twice

Conversation

@rchaser53

@rchaser53rChaser53 (rchaser53) commented Aug 24, 2019•
edited by elibarzilay
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is a partial fix for #32835, but a full fix should also handle the additional test posted there.

@rchaser53

rChaser53 (rchaser53) commented Jan 12, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Ryan Cavanaugh (@RyanCavanaugh)
Could you review my PR? And if it's ok, please merge it.
This bug is still caused using the current version.

CI is failed, but it doesn't seem to be my fault.
The other PRs are also failed and emit the same errors.
ex. https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/pull/36148/checks?check_run_id=385338469

@sandersnNathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) added the For Backlog Bug PRs that fix a backlog bug label Feb 1, 2020
@elibarzilay

Eli Barzilay (elibarzilay) commented Mar 11, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

(rChaser53 (@rchaser53) -- JFYI, I pushed a rebase to drop the big merge commit.)

elibarzilay
Eli Barzilay (elibarzilay) suggested changes Mar 12, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/compiler/checker.ts Outdated
Comment threadsrc/compiler/checker.ts Outdated
Comment threadsrc/compiler/checker.ts Outdated
Comment threadsrc/compiler/checker.ts Outdated
Comment threadsrc/compiler/checker.ts Outdated
Comment threadsrc/compiler/checker.ts Outdated
Comment threadsrc/compiler/checker.ts Outdated
Comment threadsrc/compiler/checker.ts Outdated
Comment threadsrc/compiler/checker.ts Outdated
Comment threadsrc/compiler/checker.ts Outdated
@elibarzilayEli Barzilay (elibarzilay) mentioned this pull request Mar 12, 2020
Closed
@elibarzilay

Eli Barzilay (elibarzilay) commented Mar 12, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Note that I changed the PR text to keep #32835 for the additional issue there.

@rchaser53

rChaser53 (rchaser53) commented Mar 13, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Thank you for the review. I fixed it as possible as I can.

elibarzilay
Eli Barzilay (elibarzilay) suggested changes Apr 17, 2020
View reviewed changes

@elibarzilayEli Barzilay (elibarzilay) left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, but there are still a bunch of issues that I see here...

  1. You still have the previous behavior as a special case, which I think should not be needed if this becomes a proper fix (more on that below).

  2. You initialize totalCount by the first spread length, but I think that you should add to ut the firstSpreadIndex otherwise the code doesn't count those plain arguments that might appear before the first spread.

  3. The loop starts from firstSpreadIndex, which means that this first spread's count is added twice to the count. It should probably be firstSpreadIndex+1 instead.

  4. IIUC, this code (tries to) handle tuples, but it omits arrays, which makes it a partial solution. For example, it would be good to add these two tests:

    takeTwoOrMore(...t5);
takeTwoOrMore(...t5, ...t5);

    where both should be errors --- and as it is, the second one isn't.

    I think that the previous version was handling only arrays, so handling both should make the special-cased first part redundant too.

Since this is essentially doing only an arity count check, making the code handle both arrays and tuples should not be too difficult: it should go over all of the arguments, and for each:

  • if it's a simple tuple, add its length to the count,

  • if it's an array, then remember that the count is whatever it is "plus any number of arguments",

  • if it's a tuple with a rest array (like t4), then add the length and remember a "plus any number of arguments" as the previous case,

  • if it's neither then add 1.

This should cover all cases as well as making the first special case redundant.

@elibarzilayEli Barzilay (elibarzilay) mentioned this pull request May 18, 2020
Merged
@sandersn

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented May 20, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

rChaser53 (@rchaser53) Do you want to keep working on this? Let us know if we can help explain anything more.

@rchaser53

rChaser53 (rchaser53) commented May 21, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

I cannot have the time to resolve this issue now. My main work is too busy. I'm really sorry for taking your time... I close this PR.

Eli Barzilay (elibarzilay) added a commit to elibarzilay/TypeScript that referenced this pull request May 27, 2020
@elibarzilay
Make hasCorrectArity handle tuples properly
3d08da4
This completes the work that started in PR microsoft#33069, and fixesmicrosoft#32835.
There are probably two additional related changes that are needed to
make this more complete:
* Fix the code that composes the error message (see the first two
`FIXME`s in `callWithSpread3.ts`).
* Fix the code that checks the argument types (second two `FIXME`s).
* There is also an error in `genericRestParameters1.ts` which changed
but should not be an error in the first place. Added a `FIXME` there
too. (Probably will work if the previous iterm is done.)
In addition, `getEffectiveCallArguments` munges the arguments in case of
a spread in the last argument which might be better to avoid. (I think
that there are cases where it wouldn't work anyway, such as a spread of
an array followed by a spread of an empty array.)
@elibarzilayEli Barzilay (elibarzilay) mentioned this pull request May 27, 2020
Merged
Eli Barzilay (elibarzilay) added a commit to elibarzilay/TypeScript that referenced this pull request May 27, 2020
@elibarzilay
Make hasCorrectArity handle tuples properly
f505150
This completes the work that started in PR microsoft#33069, and fixesmicrosoft#32835.
There are probably two additional related changes that are needed to
make this more complete:
* Fix the code that composes the error message (see the first two
`FIXME`s in `callWithSpread3.ts`).
* Fix the code that checks the argument types (second two `FIXME`s).
* There is also an error in `genericRestParameters1.ts` which changed
but should not be an error in the first place. Added a `FIXME` there
too. (Probably will work if the previous iterm is done.)
In addition, `getEffectiveCallArguments` munges the arguments in case of
a spread in the last argument which might be better to avoid. (I think
that there are cases where it wouldn't work anyway, such as a spread of
an array followed by a spread of an empty array.)
Eli Barzilay (elibarzilay) added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2020
@elibarzilay
Make hasCorrectArity handle tuples properly
3151e2a
This completes the work that started in PR #33069, and fixes#32835.
There are probably two additional related changes that are needed to
make this more complete:
* Fix the code that composes the error message (see the first two
`FIXME`s in `callWithSpread3.ts`).
* Fix the code that checks the argument types (second two `FIXME`s).
* There is also an error in `genericRestParameters1.ts` which changed
but should not be an error in the first place. Added a `FIXME` there
too. (Probably will work if the previous iterm is done.)
In addition, `getEffectiveCallArguments` munges the arguments in case of
a spread in the last argument which might be better to avoid. (I think
that there are cases where it wouldn't work anyway, such as a spread of
an array followed by a spread of an empty array.)
@microsoftMicrosoft (microsoft) locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 21, 2025
@typescript-bot

TypeScript Bot (typescript-bot) commented Oct 21, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR doesn't have any linked issues. Please open an issue that references this PR. From there we can discuss and prioritise.

Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Reviewers

1 more reviewer
@elibarzilayEli Barzilay (elibarzilay)elibarzilay requested changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@elibarzilayEli Barzilay (elibarzilay)

Labels

For Backlog BugPRs that fix a backlog bug

Projects

PR Backlog
Archived in project

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@rchaser53@elibarzilay@sandersn@typescript-bot