Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Appearance settings

Confusing error when returning generic in terms of this from method called on union of subclasses #36307

Copy link
Copy link
@eritbh

Description

@eritbh
Issue body actions

TypeScript Version: 3.8.0-dev.20200118

Search Terms: union of subclasses with "this" generic

Code

declare class Foo {
    doThing(): Promise<this>
}

declare class Bar extends Foo {
    bar: number;
}
declare class Baz extends Foo {
    baz: number;
}

declare var a: Bar | Baz;
a.doThing().then(result => {
	// whatever
});

Playground Link

Expected behavior:
a.doThing() should have type Promise<Bar | Baz>. result should have type Bar | Baz.

Actual behavior:
a.doThing() has the type Promise<Bar> | Promise<Baz>. The .then call has an "This expression is not callable" error on it:

This expression is not callable.
  Each member of the union type '(<TResult1 = Bar, TResult2 = never>(onfulfilled?: ((value: Bar) => TResult1 | PromiseLike<TResult1>) | null | undefined, onrejected?: ((reason: any) => TResult2 | PromiseLike<...>) | null | undefined) => Promise<...>) | (<TResult1 = Baz, TResult2 = never>(onfulfilled?: ((value: Baz) => TResult1 | PromiseLike<...>) |...' has signatures, but none of those signatures are compatible with each other.(2349)

The same behavior is observable using Array and .map rather than Promise and .then: https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?ts=3.8.0-dev.20200118&ssl=1&ssc=1&pln=16&pc=1#code/CYUwxgNghgTiAEkoGdnwGIHtPwN4Ch4j5hMAVACwEsA7AcwAoBKALngEEYYoBPAHgAu1ZAD58AX3z5QSOImip4AIVjwQADwEgawNFhwFi8AEaw2NAK4BbYyBgBuCdPDQ5SRSoBeazdt0ZsPEJiU09za1sHJ2dZBAA3VSg2FRh4AB9lKE9HKAA6UkpaRiZcqygABwY4ZAsIAXgAXhEgiSZHIA

This behavior is what I think is appropriate here since Bar and Baz are both subclasses of Foo, and therefore the doThing function being called is the same for both types in the union. I can see that outside of this specific situation, calling a function on a union type should return the union of the possible return types. However, I think it would be better if the behavior could be different for subclasses somehow.

If not, what sort of type assertion could I use to get around this?

Related Issues: #35953 seems kinda similar, but I can't make much sense of the example given there myself.

Reactions are currently unavailable

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Fix AvailableA PR has been opened for this issueA PR has been opened for this issueNeeds InvestigationThis issue needs a team member to investigate its status.This issue needs a team member to investigate its status.

Type

No type
No fields configured for issues without a type.

Projects

No projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions

    Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.