Ryan Cavanaugh
Ryan Cavanaugh
@toyobayashi this isn't assigned for any milestone -- in other words, we don't plan to fix it ourselves. If you need to do file-level preprocessing I'd strongly recommend processing the...
We intentionally allow this for the sake of defensive programming (i.e. defending against missing inputs from non-TS code). If there's enough demand we could add a flag or something.
The tipping-point scenario for us was the upcoming module resolution work, wherein it's likely that we'll be encouraging bundlers/etc to ship specific config subsets that describe their behavior.
I disagree that it's expected. If you wrote the desugared version ```js const x = someObj.x; ``` there would (I think?) be no expectation of the comments transferring over.
Working out some bot kinks 😅 ```ts repro type APIApplicationCommandSubcommandGroupOption = { options?: APIApplicationCommandSubcommandOption[]; } type CommandSubcommandGroupOption = Omit & { //
Taking possible red herrings out of the repro: ```ts repro // @strict: true declare function createSlice( reducers: { [K: string]: (state: string) => void } & { [K in keyof...
Andrew and I kicked this around a while and think the right move on *this particular repro* is Won't Fix. Reasons for this: * The thing that broke it changes...
I've been looking at `createSlice` today to try to figure out if there's something that can be done in userland to avoid the problem. The originating use case at #48812...
Is there a test suite or equivalent where I can try different definitions of `createSlice` to make sure I'm preserving the typing of the use cases?