feat(eslint-plugin): [no-unnecessary-type-assertion] report more cases based on assignability #11789
Conversation
…s based on assignability
|
Thanks for the PR, @ulrichstark! typescript-eslint is a 100% community driven project, and we are incredibly grateful that you are contributing to that community. The core maintainers work on this in their personal time, so please understand that it may not be possible for them to review your work immediately. Thanks again! 🙏 Please, if you or your company is finding typescript-eslint valuable, help us sustain the project by sponsoring it transparently on https://opencollective.com/typescript-eslint. |
✅ Deploy Preview for typescript-eslint ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
|
View your CI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit 03776db
☁️ Nx Cloud last updated this comment at |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #11789 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.53% 90.57% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 523 523
Lines 53096 53244 +148
Branches 8838 8887 +49
==========================================
+ Hits 48073 48225 +152
+ Misses 5010 5006 -4
Partials 13 13
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
…sertion]-report-more-cases-based-on-assignability
|
This was a pretty tricky change to get right. Coverage is at 100%, it reported multiple cases while dogfooding, I turned the false positives into test cases and fixed the true positives. Let the review iterations begin! |
|
At least two missing cases that I need to fix: declare function fn(param: number);
fn(42 as unknown as number);declare function fn(param: number);
fn(42 as any as number); |
2bce6c0 to
1e6a961
Compare
…sertion]-report-more-cases-based-on-assignability
JoshuaKGoldberg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👏 This is so cool! It's always surprising to see a bunch of new fixes in the codebase. Nice.
Requesting changes on two points: a few areas that don't fail tests when removed, and also I think an incorrect report in existing repo code?
| return current; | ||
| } | ||
| current = current.parent as ts.Node | undefined; | ||
| current = current.parent; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[Bug?] I believe this was more correct before?
- For the
let currentdeclaration,nodeisn'tts.Node | undefined. We know it'sts.Node - For this assignment,
current.parentists.Node | undefined. The types are just wrong.
So I think the rule is being overly aggressive about reporting current = current.parent as ts.Node | undefined.
| if (hasIndexSignature(uncast) && !hasIndexSignature(cast)) { | ||
| return false; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[Testing] Removing this doesn't fail any unit tests. Missing tests or unnecessary code?
| if (containsAny(uncast) || containsAny(cast)) { | ||
| return false; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[Testing] Removing this doesn't fail any unit tests. Missing tests or unnecessary code?
| if ( | ||
| isTypeFlagSet(uncast, ts.TypeFlags.NonPrimitive) && | ||
| !isTypeFlagSet(cast, ts.TypeFlags.NonPrimitive) | ||
| ) { | ||
| return false; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[Testing] Removing this doesn't fail any unit tests. Missing tests or unnecessary code?
PR Checklist
as anywhen type is already expected type #8107Overview
It now also reports cases like:
And fixes it to: