Imagine we have a function called padLeft
.
tsTry
functionpadLeft (padding : number | string,input : string): string {throw newError ("Not implemented yet!");}
If padding
is a number
, it will treat that as the number of spaces we want to prepend to input
.
If padding
is a string
, it should just prepend padding
to input
.
Let’s try to implement the logic for when padLeft
is passed a number
for padding
.
tsTry
functionpadLeft (padding : number | string,input : string): string {return " ".Argument of type 'string | number' is not assignable to parameter of type 'number'. Type 'string' is not assignable to type 'number'.2345Argument of type 'string | number' is not assignable to parameter of type 'number'. Type 'string' is not assignable to type 'number'.repeat () + padding input ;}
Uh-oh, we’re getting an error on padding
.
TypeScript is warning us that we’re passing a value with type number | string
to the repeat
function, which only accepts a number
, and it’s right.
In other words, we haven’t explicitly checked if padding
is a number
first, nor are we handling the case where it’s a string
, so let’s do exactly that.
tsTry
functionpadLeft (padding : number | string,input : string): string {if (typeofpadding === "number") {return " ".repeat (padding ) +input ;}returnpadding +input ;}
If this mostly looks like uninteresting JavaScript code, that’s sort of the point. Apart from the annotations we put in place, this TypeScript code looks like JavaScript. The idea is that TypeScript’s type system aims to make it as easy as possible to write typical JavaScript code without bending over backwards to get type safety.
While it might not look like much, there’s actually a lot going on under the covers here.
Much like how TypeScript analyzes runtime values using static types, it overlays type analysis on JavaScript’s runtime control flow constructs like if/else
, conditional ternaries, loops, truthiness checks, etc., which can all affect those types.
Within our if
check, TypeScript sees typeof padding === "number"
and understands that as a special form of code called a type guard.
TypeScript follows possible paths of execution that our programs can take to analyze the most specific possible type of a value at a given position.
It looks at these special checks (called type guards) and assignments, and the process of refining types to more specific types than declared is called narrowing.
In many editors we can observe these types as they change, and we’ll even do so in our examples.
tsTry
functionpadLeft (padding : number | string,input : string): string {if (typeofpadding === "number") {return " ".repeat (padding ) +input ;}returnpadding +input ;}
There are a couple of different constructs TypeScript understands for narrowing.
typeof
type guards
As we’ve seen, JavaScript supports a typeof
operator which can give very basic information about the type of values we have at runtime.
TypeScript expects this to return a certain set of strings:
"string"
"number"
"bigint"
"boolean"
"symbol"
"undefined"
"object"
"function"
Like we saw with padLeft
, this operator comes up pretty often in a number of JavaScript libraries, and TypeScript can understand it to narrow types in different branches.
In TypeScript, checking against the value returned by typeof
is a type guard.
Because TypeScript encodes how typeof
operates on different values, it knows about some of its quirks in JavaScript.
For example, notice that in the list above, typeof
doesn’t return the string null
.
Check out the following example:
tsTry
functionprintAll (strs : string | string[] | null) {if (typeofstrs === "object") {for (const'strs' is possibly 'null'.18047'strs' is possibly 'null'.s of) { strs console .log (s );}} else if (typeofstrs === "string") {console .log (strs );} else {// do nothing}}
In the printAll
function, we try to check if strs
is an object to see if it’s an array type (now might be a good time to reinforce that arrays are object types in JavaScript).
But it turns out that in JavaScript, typeof null
is actually "object"
!
This is one of those unfortunate accidents of history.
Users with enough experience might not be surprised, but not everyone has run into this in JavaScript; luckily, TypeScript lets us know that strs
was only narrowed down to string[] | null
instead of just string[]
.
This might be a good segue into what we’ll call “truthiness” checking.
Truthiness narrowing
Truthiness might not be a word you’ll find in the dictionary, but it’s very much something you’ll hear about in JavaScript.
In JavaScript, we can use any expression in conditionals, &&
s, ||
s, if
statements, Boolean negations (!
), and more.
As an example, if
statements don’t expect their condition to always have the type boolean
.
tsTry
functiongetUsersOnlineMessage (numUsersOnline : number) {if (numUsersOnline ) {return `There are ${numUsersOnline } online now!`;}return "Nobody's here. :(";}
In JavaScript, constructs like if
first “coerce” their conditions to boolean
s to make sense of them, and then choose their branches depending on whether the result is true
or false
.
Values like
0
NaN
""
(the empty string)0n
(thebigint
version of zero)null
undefined
all coerce to false
, and other values get coerced to true
.
You can always coerce values to boolean
s by running them through the Boolean
function, or by using the shorter double-Boolean negation. (The latter has the advantage that TypeScript infers a narrow literal boolean type true
, while inferring the first as type boolean
.)
tsTry
// both of these result in 'true'Boolean ("hello"); // type: boolean, value: true!!"world"; // type: true, value: true
It’s fairly popular to leverage this behavior, especially for guarding against values like null
or undefined
.
As an example, let’s try using it for our printAll
function.
tsTry
functionprintAll (strs : string | string[] | null) {if (strs && typeofstrs === "object") {for (consts ofstrs ) {console .log (s );}} else if (typeofstrs === "string") {console .log (strs );}}
You’ll notice that we’ve gotten rid of the error above by checking if strs
is truthy.
This at least prevents us from dreaded errors when we run our code like:
txt
TypeError: null is not iterable
Keep in mind though that truthiness checking on primitives can often be error prone.
As an example, consider a different attempt at writing printAll
tsTry
functionprintAll (strs : string | string[] | null) {// !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!// DON'T DO THIS!// KEEP READING// !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!if (strs ) {if (typeofstrs === "object") {for (consts ofstrs ) {console .log (s );}} else if (typeofstrs === "string") {console .log (strs );}}}
We wrapped the entire body of the function in a truthy check, but this has a subtle downside: we may no longer be handling the empty string case correctly.
TypeScript doesn’t hurt us here at all, but this behavior is worth noting if you’re less familiar with JavaScript. TypeScript can often help you catch bugs early on, but if you choose to do nothing with a value, there’s only so much that it can do without being overly prescriptive. If you want, you can make sure you handle situations like these with a linter.
One last word on narrowing by truthiness is that Boolean negations with !
filter out from negated branches.
tsTry
functionmultiplyAll (values : number[] | undefined,factor : number): number[] | undefined {if (!values ) {returnvalues ;} else {returnvalues .map ((x ) =>x *factor );}}
Equality narrowing
TypeScript also uses switch
statements and equality checks like ===
, !==
, ==
, and !=
to narrow types.
For example:
tsTry
functionexample (x : string | number,y : string | boolean) {if (x ===y ) {// We can now call any 'string' method on 'x' or 'y'.x .toUpperCase ();y .toLowerCase ();} else {console .log (x );console .log (y );}}
When we checked that x
and y
are both equal in the above example, TypeScript knew their types also had to be equal.
Since string
is the only common type that both x
and y
could take on, TypeScript knows that x
and y
must be string
s in the first branch.
Checking against specific literal values (as opposed to variables) works also.
In our section about truthiness narrowing, we wrote a printAll
function which was error-prone because it accidentally didn’t handle empty strings properly.
Instead we could have done a specific check to block out null
s, and TypeScript still correctly removes null
from the type of strs
.
tsTry
functionprintAll (strs : string | string[] | null) {if (strs !== null) {if (typeofstrs === "object") {for (consts ofstrs ) {console .log (s );}} else if (typeofstrs === "string") {console .log (strs );}}}
JavaScript’s looser equality checks with ==
and !=
also get narrowed correctly.
If you’re unfamiliar, checking whether something == null
actually not only checks whether it is specifically the value null
- it also checks whether it’s potentially undefined
.
The same applies to == undefined
: it checks whether a value is either null
or undefined
.
tsTry
interfaceContainer {value : number | null | undefined;}functionmultiplyValue (container :Container ,factor : number) {// Remove both 'null' and 'undefined' from the type.if (container .value != null) {console .log (container .value );// Now we can safely multiply 'container.value'.container .value *=factor ;}}
The in
operator narrowing
JavaScript has an operator for determining if an object or its prototype chain has a property with a name: the in
operator.
TypeScript takes this into account as a way to narrow down potential types.
For example, with the code: "value" in x
. where "value"
is a string literal and x
is a union type.
The “true” branch narrows x
’s types which have either an optional or required property value
, and the “false” branch narrows to types which have an optional or missing property value
.
tsTry
typeFish = {swim : () => void };typeBird = {fly : () => void };functionmove (animal :Fish |Bird ) {if ("swim" inanimal ) {returnanimal .swim ();}returnanimal .fly ();}
To reiterate, optional properties will exist in both sides for narrowing. For example, a human could both swim and fly (with the right equipment) and thus should show up in both sides of the in
check:
tsTry
typeFish = {swim : () => void };typeBird = {fly : () => void };typeHuman = {swim ?: () => void;fly ?: () => void };functionmove (animal :Fish |Bird |Human ) {if ("swim" inanimal ) {animal ;} else {animal ;}}
instanceof
narrowing
JavaScript has an operator for checking whether or not a value is an “instance” of another value.
More specifically, in JavaScript x instanceof Foo
checks whether the prototype chain of x
contains Foo.prototype
.
While we won’t dive deep here, and you’ll see more of this when we get into classes, they can still be useful for most values that can be constructed with new
.
As you might have guessed, instanceof
is also a type guard, and TypeScript narrows in branches guarded by instanceof
s.
tsTry
functionlogValue (x :Date | string) {if (x instanceofDate ) {console .log (x .toUTCString ());} else {console .log (x .toUpperCase ());}}
Assignments
As we mentioned earlier, when we assign to any variable, TypeScript looks at the right side of the assignment and narrows the left side appropriately.
tsTry
letx =Math .random () < 0.5 ? 10 : "hello world!";x = 1;console .log (x );x = "goodbye!";console .log (x );
Notice that each of these assignments is valid.
Even though the observed type of x
changed to number
after our first assignment, we were still able to assign a string
to x
.
This is because the declared type of x
- the type that x
started with - is string | number
, and assignability is always checked against the declared type.
If we’d assigned a boolean
to x
, we’d have seen an error since that wasn’t part of the declared type.
tsTry
letx =Math .random () < 0.5 ? 10 : "hello world!";x = 1;console .log (x );Type 'boolean' is not assignable to type 'string | number'.2322Type 'boolean' is not assignable to type 'string | number'.= true; x console .log (x );
Control flow analysis
Up until this point, we’ve gone through some basic examples of how TypeScript narrows within specific branches.
But there’s a bit more going on than just walking up from every variable and looking for type guards in if
s, while
s, conditionals, etc.
For example
tsTry
functionpadLeft (padding : number | string,input : string) {if (typeofpadding === "number") {return " ".repeat (padding ) +input ;}returnpadding +input ;}
padLeft
returns from within its first if
block.
TypeScript was able to analyze this code and see that the rest of the body (return padding + input;
) is unreachable in the case where padding
is a number
.
As a result, it was able to remove number
from the type of padding
(narrowing from string | number
to string
) for the rest of the function.
This analysis of code based on reachability is called control flow analysis, and TypeScript uses this flow analysis to narrow types as it encounters type guards and assignments. When a variable is analyzed, control flow can split off and re-merge over and over again, and that variable can be observed to have a different type at each point.
tsTry
functionexample () {letx : string | number | boolean;x =Math .random () < 0.5;console .log (x );if (Math .random () < 0.5) {x = "hello";console .log (x );} else {x = 100;console .log (x );}returnx ;}
Using type predicates
We’ve worked with existing JavaScript constructs to handle narrowing so far, however sometimes you want more direct control over how types change throughout your code.
To define a user-defined type guard, we simply need to define a function whose return type is a type predicate:
tsTry
functionisFish (pet :Fish |Bird ):pet isFish {return (pet asFish ).swim !==undefined ;}
pet is Fish
is our type predicate in this example.
A predicate takes the form parameterName is Type
, where parameterName
must be the name of a parameter from the current function signature.
Any time isFish
is called with some variable, TypeScript will narrow that variable to that specific type if the original type is compatible.
tsTry
// Both calls to 'swim' and 'fly' are now okay.letpet =getSmallPet ();if (isFish (pet )) {pet .swim ();} else {pet .fly ();}
Notice that TypeScript not only knows that pet
is a Fish
in the if
branch;
it also knows that in the else
branch, you don’t have a Fish
, so you must have a Bird
.
You may use the type guard isFish
to filter an array of Fish | Bird
and obtain an array of Fish
:
tsTry
constzoo : (Fish |Bird )[] = [getSmallPet (),getSmallPet (),getSmallPet ()];constunderWater1 :Fish [] =zoo .filter (isFish );// or, equivalentlyconstunderWater2 :Fish [] =zoo .filter (isFish ) asFish [];// The predicate may need repeating for more complex examplesconstunderWater3 :Fish [] =zoo .filter ((pet ):pet isFish => {if (pet .name === "sharkey") return false;returnisFish (pet );});
In addition, classes can use this is Type
to narrow their type.
Assertion functions
Types can also be narrowed using Assertion functions.
Discriminated unions
Most of the examples we’ve looked at so far have focused around narrowing single variables with simple types like string
, boolean
, and number
.
While this is common, most of the time in JavaScript we’ll be dealing with slightly more complex structures.
For some motivation, let’s imagine we’re trying to encode shapes like circles and squares.
Circles keep track of their radiuses and squares keep track of their side lengths.
We’ll use a field called kind
to tell which shape we’re dealing with.
Here’s a first attempt at defining Shape
.
tsTry
interfaceShape {kind : "circle" | "square";radius ?: number;sideLength ?: number;}
Notice we’re using a union of string literal types: "circle"
and "square"
to tell us whether we should treat the shape as a circle or square respectively.
By using "circle" | "square"
instead of string
, we can avoid misspelling issues.
tsTry
functionhandleShape (shape :Shape ) {// oops!if (This comparison appears to be unintentional because the types '"circle" | "square"' and '"rect"' have no overlap.2367This comparison appears to be unintentional because the types '"circle" | "square"' and '"rect"' have no overlap.shape .kind === "rect") {// ...}}
We can write a getArea
function that applies the right logic based on if it’s dealing with a circle or square.
We’ll first try dealing with circles.
tsTry
functiongetArea (shape :Shape ) {return'shape.radius' is possibly 'undefined'.18048'shape.radius' is possibly 'undefined'.Math .PI *shape .radius ** 2;}
Under strictNullChecks
that gives us an error - which is appropriate since radius
might not be defined.
But what if we perform the appropriate checks on the kind
property?
tsTry
functiongetArea (shape :Shape ) {if (shape .kind === "circle") {return'shape.radius' is possibly 'undefined'.18048'shape.radius' is possibly 'undefined'.Math .PI *shape .radius ** 2;}}
Hmm, TypeScript still doesn’t know what to do here.
We’ve hit a point where we know more about our values than the type checker does.
We could try to use a non-null assertion (a !
after shape.radius
) to say that radius
is definitely present.
tsTry
functiongetArea (shape :Shape ) {if (shape .kind === "circle") {returnMath .PI *shape .radius ! ** 2;}}
But this doesn’t feel ideal.
We had to shout a bit at the type-checker with those non-null assertions (!
) to convince it that shape.radius
was defined, but those assertions are error-prone if we start to move code around.
Additionally, outside of strictNullChecks
we’re able to accidentally access any of those fields anyway (since optional properties are just assumed to always be present when reading them).
We can definitely do better.
The problem with this encoding of Shape
is that the type-checker doesn’t have any way to know whether or not radius
or sideLength
are present based on the kind
property.
We need to communicate what we know to the type checker.
With that in mind, let’s take another swing at defining Shape
.
tsTry
interfaceCircle {kind : "circle";radius : number;}interfaceSquare {kind : "square";sideLength : number;}typeShape =Circle |Square ;
Here, we’ve properly separated Shape
out into two types with different values for the kind
property, but radius
and sideLength
are declared as required properties in their respective types.
Let’s see what happens here when we try to access the radius
of a Shape
.
tsTry
functiongetArea (shape :Shape ) {returnProperty 'radius' does not exist on type 'Shape'. Property 'radius' does not exist on type 'Square'.2339Property 'radius' does not exist on type 'Shape'. Property 'radius' does not exist on type 'Square'.Math .PI *shape .** 2; radius }
Like with our first definition of Shape
, this is still an error.
When radius
was optional, we got an error (with strictNullChecks
enabled) because TypeScript couldn’t tell whether the property was present.
Now that Shape
is a union, TypeScript is telling us that shape
might be a Square
, and Square
s don’t have radius
defined on them!
Both interpretations are correct, but only the union encoding of Shape
will cause an error regardless of how strictNullChecks
is configured.
But what if we tried checking the kind
property again?
tsTry
functiongetArea (shape :Shape ) {if (shape .kind === "circle") {returnMath .PI *shape .radius ** 2;}}
That got rid of the error! When every type in a union contains a common property with literal types, TypeScript considers that to be a discriminated union, and can narrow out the members of the union.
In this case, kind
was that common property (which is what’s considered a discriminant property of Shape
).
Checking whether the kind
property was "circle"
got rid of every type in Shape
that didn’t have a kind
property with the type "circle"
.
That narrowed shape
down to the type Circle
.
The same checking works with switch
statements as well.
Now we can try to write our complete getArea
without any pesky !
non-null assertions.
tsTry
functiongetArea (shape :Shape ) {switch (shape .kind ) {case "circle":returnMath .PI *shape .radius ** 2;case "square":returnshape .sideLength ** 2;}}
The important thing here was the encoding of Shape
.
Communicating the right information to TypeScript - that Circle
and Square
were really two separate types with specific kind
fields - was crucial.
Doing that lets us write type-safe TypeScript code that looks no different than the JavaScript we would’ve written otherwise.
From there, the type system was able to do the “right” thing and figure out the types in each branch of our switch
statement.
As an aside, try playing around with the above example and remove some of the return keywords. You’ll see that type-checking can help avoid bugs when accidentally falling through different clauses in a
switch
statement.
Discriminated unions are useful for more than just talking about circles and squares. They’re good for representing any sort of messaging scheme in JavaScript, like when sending messages over the network (client/server communication), or encoding mutations in a state management framework.
The never
type
When narrowing, you can reduce the options of a union to a point where you have removed all possibilities and have nothing left.
In those cases, TypeScript will use a never
type to represent a state which shouldn’t exist.
Exhaustiveness checking
The never
type is assignable to every type; however, no type is assignable to never
(except never
itself). This means you can use narrowing and rely on never
turning up to do exhaustive checking in a switch
statement.
For example, adding a default
to our getArea
function which tries to assign the shape to never
will not raise an error when every possible case has been handled.
tsTry
typeShape =Circle |Square ;functiongetArea (shape :Shape ) {switch (shape .kind ) {case "circle":returnMath .PI *shape .radius ** 2;case "square":returnshape .sideLength ** 2;default:const_exhaustiveCheck : never =shape ;return_exhaustiveCheck ;}}
Adding a new member to the Shape
union, will cause a TypeScript error:
tsTry
interfaceTriangle {kind : "triangle";sideLength : number;}typeShape =Circle |Square |Triangle ;functiongetArea (shape :Shape ) {switch (shape .kind ) {case "circle":returnMath .PI *shape .radius ** 2;case "square":returnshape .sideLength ** 2;default:constType 'Triangle' is not assignable to type 'never'.2322Type 'Triangle' is not assignable to type 'never'.: never = _exhaustiveCheck shape ;return_exhaustiveCheck ;}}