Description

Harper Andrews (ItsHarper)

opened on Apr 4, 2024

Issue body actions

🔍 Search Terms

"noUncheckedIndexedAccess"

✅ Viability Checklist

• This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
• This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
• This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
• This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
• This isn't a request to add a new utility type: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/No-New-Utility-Types
• This feature would agree with the rest of our Design Goals: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Design-Goals

⭐ Suggestion

When iterating through a Record type with a for...in loop, detect that the record's key is guaranteed to be present when doing lookups on the object. If the Record does not have null or undefined keys, this will allow code to not have to handle the possibility of an undefined value when noUncheckedIndexedAccess is enabled.

⏯ Playground Link

Playground link

📃 Motivating Example

Iterating through a Record with non-null/undefined values with noUncheckedIndexedAccess enabled will no longer force handling of undefined

💻 Use Cases

Without this change, I have to either leave noUncheckedIndexAccess disabled, or add unnecessary boilerplate whenever I'm iterating through a Record.

Activity

1. ItsHarper commented on Apr 4, 2024

   

   Harper Andrews (ItsHarper)

   on Apr 4, 2024

   Author

   More actions

   A similar case to this was reported as #43614, and resolved in #51653.
2. Harper Andrews (ItsHarper)

   changed the title [-]Allow iterating through a Record with `noUncheckedIndexedAccess` enabled without having to handle `undefined`[/-] [+]`noUncheckedIndexedAccess` does not narrow properly when iterating with `for...in`[/+] on Apr 4, 2024
3. jcalz commented on Apr 4, 2024

   

   Joe Calzaretta (jcalz)

   on Apr 4, 2024

   Contributor

   More actions

   Could you edit to talk about index signatures instead of Records? A Record<K, V> isn't required to have an index signature (e.g., Record<"a", string>).
4. RyanCavanaugh commented on Apr 4, 2024

   

   Ryan Cavanaugh (RyanCavanaugh)

   on Apr 4, 2024

   Member

   More actions

   You could still write

   const arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
   for (const idx in arr) {
       arr.length = 0; // n.b. might be an indirect side effect of other code!
       const m = arr[idx];
   }

   Which would give you a wrong type at m

   We don't intend to make noUncheckedIndexedAccess any smarter than it already is - nearly any attempt to make it smarter induces soundness holes in one case or another, and the point of the flag was to not have any indexing holes.
5. Ryan Cavanaugh (RyanCavanaugh)

   added

   SuggestionAn idea for TypeScriptAn idea for TypeScript

   DeclinedThe issue was declined as something which matches the TypeScript visionThe issue was declined as something which matches the TypeScript vision

   on Apr 4, 2024
6. ItsHarper commented on Apr 4, 2024

   

   Harper Andrews (ItsHarper)

   on Apr 4, 2024

   Author

   More actions

   Gotcha, that's fair. Thanks for responding!
7. Harper Andrews (ItsHarper)

   closed this as not plannedon Apr 4, 2024

Issue actions