Component commits:
bd2fd3b5e0 Only filter ignored paths from module specifier generation if there exists a better option
a687bae32b Nit
7597f5236f Merge branch 'master' into bug/42785
Co-authored-by: Andrew Branch <andrew@wheream.io>
Component commits:
9f9825a4f0 Fix: checkAliasSymbol crash when checking for @deprecated
It's possible that we shouldn't be creating symbol with no declarations
from non-homomorphic mapped types, but for 4.2, the right fix is to make
the @deprecated-check in checkAliasSymbol ensure that
target.declarations is defined.
75449de4be Add bug number and accept baselines
Co-authored-by: Nathan Shively-Sanders <nathansa@microsoft.com>
Component commits:
361e19bbe8 Ensure no duplicates in named union list
615050437b Add regression test
Co-authored-by: Anders Hejlsberg <andersh@microsoft.com>
Component commits:
0edae127ae Reduce void | undefined only in conjunction with subtype reduction
6b487a6db5 Accept new baselines
e7b6601de7 Add regression test
Co-authored-by: Anders Hejlsberg <andersh@microsoft.com>
Component commits:
214ef0c750 No did-you-mean-to-call error on casts
I chose to do the ad-hoc check rather than yet another tree walk.
1. It's faster to run and easier to read.
2. This error came from looking at real code. It happened twice, so I
think the best estimate for other uses that happened zero times is in
fact zero.
3. I couldn't think of other places to put the cast, given the
restrictions on `testedNode` just before the new code.
1d347785de Merge branch 'master' into no-did-you-mean-to-call-error-on-casts
b3be79ad0f Skip parentheses
2a288127e9 Merge branch 'master' into no-did-you-mean-to-call-error-on-casts
Co-authored-by: Nathan Shively-Sanders <nathansa@microsoft.com>
Component commits:
214ef0c750 No did-you-mean-to-call error on casts
I chose to do the ad-hoc check rather than yet another tree walk.
1. It's faster to run and easier to read.
2. This error came from looking at real code. It happened twice, so I
think the best estimate for other uses that happened zero times is in
fact zero.
3. I couldn't think of other places to put the cast, given the
restrictions on `testedNode` just before the new code.
1d347785de Merge branch 'master' into no-did-you-mean-to-call-error-on-casts
Co-authored-by: Nathan Shively-Sanders <nathansa@microsoft.com>
* Add tests for "Cannot find name 'global'. Did you mean 'global'?"
* Fix "Cannot find name 'global'. Did you mean 'global'?"
* Add an additional test case for spelling suggestions of "global".
* Name the boolean for suggestions being global scope augmentations.
* chore: failing test for const enums and isolatedModules
* fix: const enums + isolatedModules emit invalid code
In `isolatedModules` mode, the compiler does not inline const enums,
but also decides not to `import` them, leaving invalid code that
throws a `ReferenceError` at runtime.
This code:
```
import { SomeEnum } from './bar';
sink(SomeEnum.VALUE);
```
..should compile to either:
```
var { SomeEnum } = require('./bar');
sink(SomeEnum.VALUE);
```
..or (with const enum inlining):
```
sink(1 /* VALUE */);
```
..but actually compiles to:
```
sink(SomeEnum.VALUE);
```
..with no imports, which throws a ReferenceError at runtime.
---
The compiler has already realised that the symbol is a referenced const
enum, it just doesn't use this information when it comes to deciding
whether to emit an import. This commit additionally checks that
information, if we are compiling in isolatedModules mode.
---
In my opinion, this is not the correct fix, but it is the simplest. In
`isolatedModules` mode, `const enum` should probably be a compile error
(because there are no benefits and the complexity is high, and,
apparently, buggy). If not, the compiler should not be checking whether
something is a const enum, and should just be treating it as a regular
enum, and checking as if it was?
Fixes#40499.
* chore: extra test for type-only
* feat: explicitly ban --isolatedModules --preserveConstEnums false
* feat: isolatedModules implies preserveConstEnum
* Update src/compiler/diagnosticMessages.json
Co-authored-by: Andrew Branch <andrewbranch@users.noreply.github.com>
* chore: compiler test for argument incompatibility
* Add and fix test for namespace import of const enum
* Fix additional bug with reexport of const-enum-only module
Co-authored-by: Andrew Branch <andrewbranch@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Branch <andrew@wheream.io>
* 'in' should not operate on primitive types
* accept baselines of failing tests
* review
* update error message
* check if constraint of right type is assignable to a non primitive or instantiable non primitive
* do not throw errors where narrowing is impossible
* accept baselines
* fix test case failures
* Add more accurate comment discussion and document failing edge case in test
* Update baselines
Co-authored-by: Jonas Hübotter <jonas.huebotter@gmail.com>
* fix as suggestion.
* Update moduleSpecifiers.ts
* compare symbol rather than string
* fix typo.
* fix
* fix lint.
* better name and more clear code
* fix comment.
Co-authored-by: Orta Therox <git@orta.io>
* Have signature identity checks look at the base constraint of type parameters, allow identical type parameter lists to merge in union signatures
* Update text in fourslash test
* Add whitespace to fix lint, remove duplicate impl
* Consolidate names
* Remove comparisons of type parameter defaults, add more test cases
* Explore at least 10 levels of constraints before checking for deeply nested types
* Simplify constraint depth limiter logic
* Add regression test
* Accept new baselines
Fixes#41586Fixes#41588
1. For binary expressions, if the immediate parent is an IfStatement,
then check the body of the if statement. I didn't walk upward to find an
IfStatement because in my experimentation I found that binary expression
uncalled-function errors are only issued when the expression is on the left of the
top-most binary expression.
2. For property accesses with interspersed calls, I added a
CallExpression case. In fact, any expression could appear here, but I
only want to fix calls for now since that's all we've observed in
Definitely Typed, and we didn't see anything else in the user tests or RWC
tests. I also didn't examine parameters of the intermediate call
expressions, but I don't think it's needed since the intent is to avoid
false positives.
