-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.5k
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.
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
Reserve promise in top level module #6631
Changes from all commits
4d3f6e7
95422fa
35044d1
c20a705
655d5c9
e4c0c00
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -2473,10 +2473,21 @@ namespace ts { | |
|
||
function getDeclarationContainer(node: Node): Node { | ||
node = getRootDeclaration(node); | ||
while (node) { | ||
switch (node.kind) { | ||
case SyntaxKind.VariableDeclaration: | ||
case SyntaxKind.VariableDeclarationList: | ||
case SyntaxKind.ImportSpecifier: | ||
case SyntaxKind.NamedImports: | ||
case SyntaxKind.NamespaceImport: | ||
case SyntaxKind.ImportClause: | ||
node = node.parent; | ||
break; | ||
|
||
// Parent chain: | ||
// VaribleDeclaration -> VariableDeclarationList -> VariableStatement -> 'Declaration Container' | ||
return node.kind === SyntaxKind.VariableDeclaration ? node.parent.parent.parent : node.parent; | ||
default: | ||
return node.parent; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
function getTypeOfPrototypeProperty(prototype: Symbol): Type { | ||
|
@@ -2618,7 +2629,7 @@ namespace ts { | |
} | ||
} | ||
else if (declaration.kind === SyntaxKind.Parameter) { | ||
// If it's a parameter, see if the parent has a jsdoc comment with an @param | ||
// If it's a parameter, see if the parent has a jsdoc comment with an @param | ||
// annotation. | ||
const paramTag = getCorrespondingJSDocParameterTag(<ParameterDeclaration>declaration); | ||
if (paramTag && paramTag.typeExpression) { | ||
|
@@ -2633,7 +2644,7 @@ namespace ts { | |
function getTypeForVariableLikeDeclaration(declaration: VariableLikeDeclaration): Type { | ||
if (declaration.parserContextFlags & ParserContextFlags.JavaScriptFile) { | ||
// If this is a variable in a JavaScript file, then use the JSDoc type (if it has | ||
// one as its type), otherwise fallback to the below standard TS codepaths to | ||
// one as its type), otherwise fallback to the below standard TS codepaths to | ||
// try to figure it out. | ||
const type = getTypeForVariableLikeDeclarationFromJSDocComment(declaration); | ||
if (type && type !== unknownType) { | ||
|
@@ -4058,7 +4069,7 @@ namespace ts { | |
const isJSConstructSignature = isJSDocConstructSignature(declaration); | ||
let returnType: Type = undefined; | ||
|
||
// If this is a JSDoc construct signature, then skip the first parameter in the | ||
// If this is a JSDoc construct signature, then skip the first parameter in the | ||
// parameter list. The first parameter represents the return type of the construct | ||
// signature. | ||
for (let i = isJSConstructSignature ? 1 : 0, n = declaration.parameters.length; i < n; i++) { | ||
|
@@ -4461,7 +4472,7 @@ namespace ts { | |
} | ||
|
||
if (symbol.flags & SymbolFlags.Value && node.kind === SyntaxKind.JSDocTypeReference) { | ||
// A JSDocTypeReference may have resolved to a value (as opposed to a type). In | ||
// A JSDocTypeReference may have resolved to a value (as opposed to a type). In | ||
// that case, the type of this reference is just the type of the value we resolved | ||
// to. | ||
return getTypeOfSymbol(symbol); | ||
|
@@ -10468,7 +10479,7 @@ namespace ts { | |
|
||
/* | ||
*TypeScript Specification 1.0 (6.3) - July 2014 | ||
* An explicitly typed function whose return type isn't the Void type, | ||
* An explicitly typed function whose return type isn't the Void type, | ||
* the Any type, or a union type containing the Void or Any type as a constituent | ||
* must have at least one return statement somewhere in its body. | ||
* An exception to this rule is if the function implementation consists of a single 'throw' statement. | ||
|
@@ -11625,6 +11636,9 @@ namespace ts { | |
checkTypeAssignableTo(iterableIteratorInstantiation, returnType, node.type); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
else if (isAsyncFunctionLike(node)) { | ||
checkAsyncFunctionReturnType(<FunctionLikeDeclaration>node); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
|
@@ -12494,6 +12508,36 @@ namespace ts { | |
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* Checks that the return type provided is an instantiation of the global Promise<T> type | ||
* and returns the awaited type of the return type. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. since it is already jsdoc. could you add the parameter annotation as well? |
||
* | ||
* @param returnType The return type of a FunctionLikeDeclaration | ||
* @param location The node on which to report the error. | ||
*/ | ||
function checkCorrectPromiseType(returnType: Type, location: Node) { | ||
if (returnType === unknownType) { | ||
// The return type already had some other error, so we ignore and return | ||
// the unknown type. | ||
return unknownType; | ||
} | ||
|
||
const globalPromiseType = getGlobalPromiseType(); | ||
if (globalPromiseType === emptyGenericType | ||
|| globalPromiseType === getTargetType(returnType)) { | ||
// Either we couldn't resolve the global promise type, which would have already | ||
// reported an error, or we could resolve it and the return type is a valid type | ||
// reference to the global type. In either case, we return the awaited type for | ||
// the return type. | ||
return checkAwaitedType(returnType, location, Diagnostics.An_async_function_or_method_must_have_a_valid_awaitable_return_type); | ||
} | ||
|
||
// The promise type was not a valid type reference to the global promise type, so we | ||
// report an error and return the unknown type. | ||
error(location, Diagnostics.The_return_type_of_an_async_function_or_method_must_be_the_global_Promise_T_type); | ||
return unknownType; | ||
} | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* Checks the return type of an async function to ensure it is a compatible | ||
* Promise implementation. | ||
|
@@ -12508,6 +12552,11 @@ namespace ts { | |
* callable `then` signature. | ||
*/ | ||
function checkAsyncFunctionReturnType(node: FunctionLikeDeclaration): Type { | ||
if (languageVersion >= ScriptTarget.ES6) { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. why >= ES6? I thought need to resolve global Promise when down-leveling? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @rbuckton explains off-line. ES6 has native Promise. I misunderstood that fact There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. ES5 and earlier do not have a global Promise. We fall back to the existing behavior for ES5 as we plan to support async functions via tree transformation for target ES5 and users will need to be able to supply a Promise implementation. |
||
const returnType = getTypeFromTypeNode(node.type); | ||
return checkCorrectPromiseType(returnType, node.type); | ||
} | ||
|
||
const globalPromiseConstructorLikeType = getGlobalPromiseConstructorLikeType(); | ||
if (globalPromiseConstructorLikeType === emptyObjectType) { | ||
// If we couldn't resolve the global PromiseConstructorLike type we cannot verify | ||
|
@@ -12723,6 +12772,7 @@ namespace ts { | |
checkCollisionWithCapturedSuperVariable(node, node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithCapturedThisVariable(node, node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithRequireExportsInGeneratedCode(node, node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithGlobalPromiseInGeneratedCode(node, node.name); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
|
@@ -12907,6 +12957,25 @@ namespace ts { | |
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
function checkCollisionWithGlobalPromiseInGeneratedCode(node: Node, name: Identifier): void { | ||
if (!needCollisionCheckForIdentifier(node, name, "Promise")) { | ||
return; | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Uninstantiated modules shouldnt do this check | ||
if (node.kind === SyntaxKind.ModuleDeclaration && getModuleInstanceState(node) !== ModuleInstanceState.Instantiated) { | ||
return; | ||
} | ||
|
||
// In case of variable declaration, node.parent is variable statement so look at the variable statement's parent | ||
const parent = getDeclarationContainer(node); | ||
if (parent.kind === SyntaxKind.SourceFile && isExternalOrCommonJsModule(<SourceFile>parent) && parent.flags & NodeFlags.HasAsyncFunctions) { | ||
// If the declaration happens to be in external module, report error that Promise is a reserved identifier. | ||
error(name, Diagnostics.Duplicate_identifier_0_Compiler_reserves_name_1_in_top_level_scope_of_a_module_containing_async_functions, | ||
declarationNameToString(name), declarationNameToString(name)); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
function checkVarDeclaredNamesNotShadowed(node: VariableDeclaration | BindingElement) { | ||
// - ScriptBody : StatementList | ||
// It is a Syntax Error if any element of the LexicallyDeclaredNames of StatementList | ||
|
@@ -13085,6 +13154,7 @@ namespace ts { | |
checkCollisionWithCapturedSuperVariable(node, <Identifier>node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithCapturedThisVariable(node, <Identifier>node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithRequireExportsInGeneratedCode(node, <Identifier>node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithGlobalPromiseInGeneratedCode(node, <Identifier>node.name); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
|
@@ -13850,6 +13920,7 @@ namespace ts { | |
checkTypeNameIsReserved(node.name, Diagnostics.Class_name_cannot_be_0); | ||
checkCollisionWithCapturedThisVariable(node, node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithRequireExportsInGeneratedCode(node, node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithGlobalPromiseInGeneratedCode(node, node.name); | ||
} | ||
checkTypeParameters(node.typeParameters); | ||
checkExportsOnMergedDeclarations(node); | ||
|
@@ -14356,6 +14427,7 @@ namespace ts { | |
checkTypeNameIsReserved(node.name, Diagnostics.Enum_name_cannot_be_0); | ||
checkCollisionWithCapturedThisVariable(node, node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithRequireExportsInGeneratedCode(node, node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithGlobalPromiseInGeneratedCode(node, node.name); | ||
checkExportsOnMergedDeclarations(node); | ||
|
||
computeEnumMemberValues(node); | ||
|
@@ -14460,6 +14532,7 @@ namespace ts { | |
|
||
checkCollisionWithCapturedThisVariable(node, node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithRequireExportsInGeneratedCode(node, node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithGlobalPromiseInGeneratedCode(node, node.name); | ||
checkExportsOnMergedDeclarations(node); | ||
const symbol = getSymbolOfNode(node); | ||
|
||
|
@@ -14652,6 +14725,7 @@ namespace ts { | |
function checkImportBinding(node: ImportEqualsDeclaration | ImportClause | NamespaceImport | ImportSpecifier) { | ||
checkCollisionWithCapturedThisVariable(node, node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithRequireExportsInGeneratedCode(node, node.name); | ||
checkCollisionWithGlobalPromiseInGeneratedCode(node, node.name); | ||
checkAliasSymbol(node); | ||
} | ||
|
||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -195,6 +195,10 @@ | |
"category": "Error", | ||
"code": 1063 | ||
}, | ||
"The return type of an async function or method must be the global Promise<T> type.": { | ||
"category": "Error", | ||
"code": 1064 | ||
}, | ||
"In ambient enum declarations member initializer must be constant expression.": { | ||
"category": "Error", | ||
"code": 1066 | ||
|
@@ -794,7 +798,7 @@ | |
"A decorator can only decorate a method implementation, not an overload.": { | ||
"category": "Error", | ||
"code": 1249 | ||
}, | ||
}, | ||
"'with' statements are not allowed in an async function block.": { | ||
"category": "Error", | ||
"code": 1300 | ||
|
@@ -1687,6 +1691,10 @@ | |
"category": "Error", | ||
"code": 2528 | ||
}, | ||
"Duplicate identifier '{0}'. Compiler reserves name '{1}' in top level scope of a module containing async functions.": { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The compiler reserves '{1}' in the top level scope of of a module when using async functions. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is modeled after TS2441: There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think we should change that as well then. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Also "when using async functions" is too broad. It only enforces this check if you use async functions in the current module, hence the wording: "in the top level scope of a module containing async functions." There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Let's just do that in a different PR like you mentioned. |
||
"category": "Error", | ||
"code": 2529 | ||
}, | ||
"JSX element attributes type '{0}' may not be a union type.": { | ||
"category": "Error", | ||
"code": 2600 | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ var __param = (this && this.__param) || function (paramIndex, decorator) { | |
|
||
const awaiterHelper = ` | ||
var __awaiter = (this && this.__awaiter) || function (thisArg, _arguments, P, generator) { | ||
return new P(function (resolve, reject) { | ||
return new (P || (P = Promise))(function (resolve, reject) { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. why can't use always just do There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We are leaving support for custom Promise return types for ES5 and earlier which do not have a global Promise, so we want to keep the same argument list. The default behavior now will be to use the Promise captured in the same scope as // input.ts
export namespace x {
var Promise = "Not a Promise constructor.";
async function f(): Promise { // references global Promise type
}
}
// output.js
var __awaiter = ...; // captures global Promise here
export var x = (function (x) {
var Promise = "Not a Promise constructor."; // local Promise var shadows global Promise
function f() {
// Before this change, we would capture Promise here, which would be the wrong Promise:
// return __awaiter(this, void 0, Promise, function *() { });
// After this change, we use the Promise captured at the top-level of the module.
return __awaiter(this, void 0, void 0, function *() { });
}
})(x || (x = {})); |
||
function fulfilled(value) { try { step(generator.next(value)); } catch (e) { reject(e); } } | ||
function rejected(value) { try { step(generator.throw(value)); } catch (e) { reject(e); } } | ||
function step(result) { result.done ? resolve(result.value) : new P(function (resolve) { resolve(result.value); }).then(fulfilled, rejected); } | ||
|
@@ -4531,11 +4531,11 @@ const _super = (function (geti, seti) { | |
write(", void 0, "); | ||
} | ||
|
||
if (promiseConstructor) { | ||
emitEntityNameAsExpression(promiseConstructor, /*useFallback*/ false); | ||
if (languageVersion >= ScriptTarget.ES6 || !promiseConstructor) { | ||
write("void 0"); | ||
} | ||
else { | ||
write("Promise"); | ||
emitEntityNameAsExpression(promiseConstructor, /*useFallback*/ false); | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Emit the call to __awaiter. | ||
|
This file was deleted.
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ | ||
=== tests/cases/conformance/async/es6/asyncAliasReturnType_es6.ts === | ||
type PromiseAlias<T> = Promise<T>; | ||
>PromiseAlias : Symbol(PromiseAlias, Decl(asyncAliasReturnType_es6.ts, 0, 0)) | ||
>T : Symbol(T, Decl(asyncAliasReturnType_es6.ts, 0, 18)) | ||
>Promise : Symbol(Promise, Decl(lib.d.ts, --, --), Decl(lib.d.ts, --, --)) | ||
>T : Symbol(T, Decl(asyncAliasReturnType_es6.ts, 0, 18)) | ||
|
||
async function f(): PromiseAlias<void> { | ||
>f : Symbol(f, Decl(asyncAliasReturnType_es6.ts, 0, 34)) | ||
>PromiseAlias : Symbol(PromiseAlias, Decl(asyncAliasReturnType_es6.ts, 0, 0)) | ||
} |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ | ||
=== tests/cases/conformance/async/es6/asyncAliasReturnType_es6.ts === | ||
type PromiseAlias<T> = Promise<T>; | ||
>PromiseAlias : Promise<T> | ||
>T : T | ||
>Promise : Promise<T> | ||
>T : T | ||
|
||
async function f(): PromiseAlias<void> { | ||
>f : () => Promise<void> | ||
>PromiseAlias : Promise<T> | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the reason for the compiler to reject type annotations that are known compatible with
Promise
? This won't catch any type errors, but rejects valid annotations. Generator functions handle this consistently IMO. Why not use the same approach here for consistency?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The
checker.ts
code for generator functions usescheckTypeAssignableTo
to check the return type annotation (L11625). Why ischeckTypeAssignableTo
not used for async functions?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is the result of an offline discussion with @mhegazy. Supporting an assignable interface is not currently compatible with our goals for future down-level support for async functions for ES5. As a result, async functions will for the time being be more restrictive than generators with respect to the return type annotation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ES3/5 restrictions need not be applied to ES6 code. Why not this:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mhegazy you gave qualitied support back in December for treating return type annotations one way for ES3/5 (improve the error message), and another way for ES6+ (use
checkTypeAssignableTo
). Is this still the case?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The current support we have in TypeScript 1.7.x for async functions allows you to specify a custom Promise implementation in the return type annotation. This was intended to support runtimes that do not yet define a global Promise implementation, and was primarily intended to support down-level emit for async functions in ES5, which is a goal for TypeScript 2.0. This allows you to write an async function in the following fashion:
However, this approach is not compatible with the ES7 approach to async functions which only leverages the native Promise implementation. As this native Promise is specified as part of ES6, we have elected to only allow you to supply a global
Promise<T>
return type for ES6, but reserve the previous functionality to eventually support async functions down-level.If we were to then allow you to specify the return type of an async function as any type to which
Promise<T>
is assignable, then the above sample would still compile successfully, due to how "bluebird.d.ts" is currently implemented on DefinitelyTyped. The result is that upgrading from TypeScript 1.7.x to TypeScript 1.8 would result in completely different runtime semantics with no indication to the developer that anything had changed.By restricting the return type annotation to only the global
Promise<T>
type, we have the ability to loosen this restriction in the future. Yes, this does not fully align with how we support type annotations on generator functions; however, this is the only reliable way forward. We may, in a future release, opt to add a different mechanism for defining a compatible Promise implementation for ES5 async functions. If that does indeed become the case, we would be able to loosen the return type restriction.As this is a breaking change from TypeScript 1.7 behavior, it also is best to be more conservative for one to two releases to ensure any existing implementations have adjusted to this change before examining the feasibility of relaxing this restriction.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The fact that the return type must be strictly equal to
Promise
might become a hindrance in scenarios involving interfaces and/or methods overriding.You can work around it by adding a layer of indirection (like all CS problems 😉) but it doesn't feel nice.
Here's one example: in frameworks such as Aurelia, many methods can return a value or a Promise for a value. Not mandating a Promise is both convenient when implementing trivial methods (like
canSave() { return true; }
) and good for perf.Say I have a base class that exposes such a function and is meant to be overriden. Assume that the base default implementation is async.
The natural way is this:
but this wouldn't work :(
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jods4 good real world example. Current behaviour:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jods4 since this PR is done and closed may I suggest taking your example across to #6686 where I think it would be quite relevent.