Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Ignore bivariance in subtype relationship - #41979
Ignore bivariance in subtype relationship#41979Ryan Cavanaugh (RyanCavanaugh) wants to merge 10 commits into
Conversation
…rameters, allow identical type parameter lists to merge in union signatures
30aca09 to
376a03bCompareRyan Cavanaugh (RyanCavanaugh)
commented
Dec 15, 2020
Rebuilt on top of #31023 which is an effective prerequisite to this being palatable |
Ryan Cavanaugh (RyanCavanaugh)
commented
Dec 16, 2020
TypeScript Bot (@typescript-bot) test this |
Heya Ryan Cavanaugh (@RyanCavanaugh), I've started to run the parallelized community code test suite on this PR at 7479b8a. You can monitor the build here. |
Heya Ryan Cavanaugh (@RyanCavanaugh), I've started to run the extended test suite on this PR at 7479b8a. You can monitor the build here. |
Heya Ryan Cavanaugh (@RyanCavanaugh), I've started to run the parallelized Definitely Typed test suite on this PR at 7479b8a. You can monitor the build here. |
| } | ||
| else if (isArray(visited)) { | ||
| visitedNode = (lift || extractSingleNode)(visited); | ||
| visitedNode = (lift || extractSingleNode)(visited as unknown as NodeArray<Node>); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cc Wesley Wigham (@weswigham)Anders Hejlsberg (@ahejlsberg) interesting break here. visited is narrowed to Node[] here, but lift is undefined | (arg: NodeArray<Node>) => Node, so we were passing what we only proved to be a Node[] to something that needed a subtype of Node[]. It's not immediately clear to me if this is a bug-in-fact but it's definitely not correct per our normal definitions, i.e. you could not have written
if(lift)lift(visited);on this line
TypeScript Bot (typescript-bot)
commented
Dec 16, 2020
The user suite test run you requested has finished and failed. I've opened a PR with the baseline diff from master. |
Ryan Cavanaugh (RyanCavanaugh)
commented
Dec 16, 2020
Closing in favor of the more targeted fix |
Evaluates a potential fix for #41977