Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Unexpected narrowing of optional fields via Object.entries #61650

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
defunctzombie opened this issue May 3, 2025 · 3 comments
Closed

Unexpected narrowing of optional fields via Object.entries #61650

defunctzombie opened this issue May 3, 2025 · 3 comments
Labels
Question An issue which isn't directly actionable in code

Comments

@defunctzombie
Copy link

defunctzombie commented May 3, 2025 •
edited
Loading

🔎 Search Terms

object.entires incorrect type narrowed

🕗 Version & Regression Information

I can experience this on v5.8.3. I also checked back to 5.0.4 on the playground and see the same behavior

⏯ Playground Link

https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?target=10&ts=5.8.3#code/GYVwdgxgLglg9mABMMAKYc4C5EG9EBGAhgE4D8OYIAtgQKYmIA+i4AJncDGHW4gL4BKPAChEiAPQTEUAJ4AHOgGcIJGPKgyAFtwDWS7TANHEAAwDaSqGrABzADSIqtBgF1zr04gDuWukiJoECIAGxDZRBhNCCIkejNLa24HJxp6RhZ2Tm5ed08xRAgEK0RSRgBeRAB5AgArOmgAOn8k5XRMQQBuAqKwJTgQukaQuFtUMq6RfhERFFRcAuISHCyuHjYprqA

💻 Code

function fn(foo: { bar?: number | undefined }) {
  // typescript thinks _arr_ is `[string, number][]` when actually it is `[string, number | undefined][]`
  const arr = Object.entries(foo);
  console.log(arr);
}

fn({
  bar: undefined
});

🙁 Actual behavior

The type from Object.entries is narrowed

🙂 Expected behavior

Object.entries(foo) produces a type output that is [string, number | undefined][] when foo has type { bar?: number | undefined }

Additional information about the issue

No response
@defunctzombie defunctzombie changed the title Unexpected narrowing of optional fields when using Object.entries Unexpected narrowing of optional fields via Object.entries May 3, 2025
@MartinJohns
Copy link
Contributor

You need to enable exactOptionalPropertyTypes.

@defunctzombie
Copy link
Author

You need to enable exactOptionalPropertyTypes.

@MartinJohns could you elaborate on why that option would change the behavior here? From my perspective Object.entries has dropped the notion that one of the fields could be set to undefined and that would be a valid value for it. I understand the idea that it could be omitted entirely - but not being present is different than being set to undefined.

@RyanCavanaugh RyanCavanaugh added the Question An issue which isn't directly actionable in code label May 6, 2025
@snarbles2
Copy link

Without exactOptionalPropertyTypes there is no distinction between {prop?: someType} and {prop?: someType | undefined}; the latter behaves as if the former.

not being present is different than being set to undefined

That is the distinction that exactOptionalPropertyTypes allows for.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Question An issue which isn't directly actionable in code
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@defunctzombie @MartinJohns @RyanCavanaugh @snarbles2