Skip to content

fix: revert behavior of parsing Intersect of Objects #443

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
Merged
yuhr merged 1 commit into from
Jan 16, 2025
Merged

fix: revert behavior of parsing Intersect of Objects #443

yuhr merged 1 commit into from
Jan 16, 2025

Conversation

@yuhr
Copy link
Member

@yuhr yuhr commented Jan 12, 2025

#442 sometimes produced unsound type inference, such as in case where properties with the same name might be parsed into different values.

const P = Object({ n: String.withParser(() => 1 as const) })
const N = Object({ n: String.withParser(parseInt) })
const PN = P.and(N)
assertEquals(PN.parse({ n: "42" }).n, 1)
// `n` is infered as `1`, but `undefined` actually.

I can't imagine any viable solution to this, so reverting.

@coveralls
Copy link
Collaborator

coveralls commented Jan 12, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12805693408

Details

  • 13 of 13 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.4%) to 93.939%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 12725608463: 0.4%
Covered Lines: 1519
Relevant Lines: 1606
💛 - Coveralls

@yuhr yuhr force-pushed the fix/parser-union-intersect branch from 04ad36b to ff78342 Compare January 16, 2025 09:16
@yuhr yuhr merged commit 68590bb into master Jan 16, 2025
1 check passed
@yuhr yuhr deleted the fix/parser-union-intersect branch January 16, 2025 09:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@yuhr @coveralls