Add index signature for anonymous object literal type #37903
Conversation
|
ping @weswigham because I believe you have thought a lot about index signatures. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should implement the new behavior within getPropertyTypeForIndexType, rather than checkElementAccessExpression - specifically if the accessFlags are for Writing, and the originalObjectType passes isObjectTypeWithInferableIndex, and we failed to lookup a property or index signature type. This should mirror the checks we do in comparisons, I think.
|
@weswigham I'd appreciate that you'd let me know any test cases I should add, if any! |
okmttdhr
force-pushed
the
object-literal-index-signature
branch
from
443ad78 to
2ce92c4
Compare
okmttdhr
force-pushed
the
object-literal-index-signature
branch
2 times, most recently
from
dccfdbb to
8ea849b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whew, sorry for the huge delay - guess I was waiting for a response from @RyanCavanaugh that never came. I lieu of that, this looks broadly good, but I still have two small comments before this seems good to merge.
tests/baselines/reference/augmentedTypeBracketAccessIndexSignature.errors.txt
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
typescript-bot
added
For Uncommitted Bug
okmttdhr
force-pushed
the
object-literal-index-signature
branch
from
26a35bc to
6eb7900
Compare
okmttdhr
force-pushed
the
object-literal-index-signature
branch
2 times, most recently
from
50c9007 to
73acd03
Compare
okmttdhr
force-pushed
the
object-literal-index-signature
branch
from
73acd03 to
5ae218d
Compare
|
@weswigham Looking at your last review, and the subsequent commits, I think this is ready to merge once the 4.1 RC is out. Does that sound right to you? |
|
Yeah, this looks good now. @sandersn do you want to merge whenever you feel is appropriate? |
|
The PR doesn't have any linked issues. Please open an issue that references this PR. From there we can discuss and prioritise. |
Fixes #14951
Related to #26710