James Adarich

What do you think of the suggestion above @Jameskmonger?

@Jameskmonger looks good. What about for tests without test cases?

@Jameskmonger I think you misunderstood. How would you make it type safe. We need to keep the description separate otherwise you'll have to repeat it for every test case or...

Probably even better might be to remove the array from the overloads and use the spread operator on the main function :)

I'll show you what I mean either tomorrow or Monday as I'm away from my PC just now @jameskmonger

@Jameskmonger ```typescript interface TestCaseDecoratorImplementation { ( target: object, propertyKey: string, descriptor?: TypedPropertyDescriptor ): void; } const TestCaseDecorator = (args: TArgs): TestCaseDecoratorImplementation => { return ( target: object, propertyKey: string, descriptor?:...

@Jameskmonger it looks like this declaration doesn't care about extra arguments which is causing the issue here because also the below is OK by the compiler ```typescript @Test("cool value", 42)...

@Jameskmonger the problem isn't the 0 children thing it's the extra children that are allowed. This isn't actually to do with the spread operator as we can see this in...

@Jameskmonger for clarity the issues are marked with the comment `// ok?`

These compile where they shouldn't