fix: non-optional properties in generic interfaces #132
+18
−18
Conversation
This file contains 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
1 task
nzakas
approved these changes
Nov 6, 2024
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Prerequisites checklist
What is the purpose of this pull request?
Fix a bug in the types.
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
This PR fixes the type integration tests in ESLint which would currently fail with
@eslint/[email protected](eslint/eslint#19098).The fix consists in marking the properties of generic interfaces as non-optional, meaning that they can't be
undefined. These properties are only used to refer to a type. For example there is no actual object with a propertyMessageIds, butRuleDefinitionTypeOptions["MessageIds"]is used as an alias forstring. If a union withundefinedis desired, it can always be indicated explicitly asRuleDefinitionTypeOptions["MessageIds"] | undefined.Related Issues
refs eslint/eslint#19098
Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?