Feat: add some overloads for StoreSetter#1556
Open
SarguelUnda wants to merge 1 commit intosolidjs:mainfrom
Open
Feat: add some overloads for StoreSetter#1556SarguelUnda wants to merge 1 commit intosolidjs:mainfrom
SarguelUnda wants to merge 1 commit intosolidjs:mainfrom
Conversation
|
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 4178913027Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.
Details
💛 - Coveralls |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
At the moment typescript only allow the following signatures for SetStoreFunction interface;
I'm hidding the type because it's not relevant for the discussion. Said another way, at the moment, the interface only allow for:
My proposition is to add overload for the cases:
So that it would be legal to write :
Breaking change:
Adding support for those cases means that this does not error anymore
The reason for that is that the rest of the overload 1+ typing is not smart enough to inspect the second argument so it thinks that he is looking at a
(string | number)[]. I say it is not a big deal to lose this safety and it was a safety we didn't provide for case 8+ before my change anyway.How did you test this change?
Commented the 2 failing tests
Added some test for the new signatures
pnpm test