Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wesley Wigham (@weswigham)Nathan Shively-Sanders (@sandersn) when I was looking at this with Eli, this brought up a question as to why/how
exportedType(defined a few lines above—the type ofrequire('./y.js')in the test case) could have non-value members. InresolveAnonymousTypeMembers, it copies the exports of the symbol to the type, but of course, theexportsof the .d.ts module includes a type symbol. It was surprising to me thatresolveStructuredTypeMemberscan return an anonymous object type that has members that are also types. Is that normal?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
normal-ish -- it can easily happen when you merge a type-only namespace with an object literal:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I realized I was confusing anonymous type members with anonymous type properties, which are guaranteed to be values. With that confusion cleared up, this fix definitely looks correct. The possibility of type members was simply overlooked in the past.