Why is the object possibly undefined in typescript, when an explicit undefined check is added via fu-CodePudding

Below is a small example, where I would like to ask, why the eslinter for typescript is complaining about the object, that it could be possibly undefined in that case, where an undefined-check is actually added, just that it is extracted into a separate function, so that is gets a more meaningful name.

import { ReactElement } from "react";
import "./styles.css";

interface Item {
  id?: string;
  images?: string[];
}

const itemHasImages = (item: Item): boolean =>
  item.images !== undefined && item.images.length > 0;

const renderItem = (item: Item): ReactElement => {
  if(itemHasImages(item)){ // <<< using this the compiler complains below in JSX that item could possibly be null
    // vs if(item.images !== undefined && item.images.length > 0) <<< here the compiler recognizes the check
    return (
      <>
        <img src={item.images[0]} alt={""} />
      </>
    );
  } else {
    return <></>
  }
};

export default function App() {
  const dummyItems = [
    {
      images: ["https://picsum.photos/200/300", "https://picsum.photos/200/300"]
    },
    {
      images: ["https://picsum.photos/200/300", "https://picsum.photos/200/300"]
    }
  ];

  if (itemHasImages(dummyItems[0])) {
    console.log("hello")
    renderItem(dummyItems[0]);
  } else {
    return <div>Hello</div>;
  }
  return <div>Hello</div>;
}

Please apologize weak formatting, for better interaction you can find a code-sandbox link here:

https://codesandbox.io/s/unruffled-bogdan-c74u6?file=/src/App.tsx

CodePudding user response：

In your posted code Typescript has no way of knowing that the boolean returned from your function is intended as a type guard for the item object.

To solve this you can declare a type predicate as the return type of your function indicating that Typescript should interpret the returned boolean as an assertion of the predicate. You will need to have a type/interface that describes an item with a required images property to use in the predicate.

You can either do this explicitly by extending the Item interface and making the images property required. (sandbox, ts-playground)

interface Item {
  id?: string;
  images?: string[];
}

interface ItemWithImages extends Item {
  images: string[];
}

function itemHasImages(item: Item): item is ItemWithImages {
  return item.images !== undefined && item.images.length > 0;
}

const renderItem = (item: Item): ReactElement => {
  if (itemHasImages(item)) {
    // vs if(item.images !== undefined && item.images.length > 0) <<< here the compiler recognizes the check
    return (
      <>
        <img src={item.images[0]} alt={""} />
      </>
    );
  } else {
    return <></>;
  }
};

Or you can implement the utility type described in the flagged duplicate which converts an optional property to a required one. (sandbox, ts-playground)

/**
 * @see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52127082/ensure-existance-of-optional-property-in-typescript-interface
 */
 type MakeRequired<T, K extends keyof T> = Pick<T, Exclude<keyof T, K>> &
 { [P in K]-?: Exclude<T[P], undefined> };

interface Item {
 id?: string;
 images?: string[];
}

function itemHasImages(item: Item): item is MakeRequired<Item, "images"> {
 return item.images !== undefined && item.images.length > 0;
}

const renderItem = (item: Item): ReactElement => {
 if (itemHasImages(item)) {
   // vs if(item.images !== undefined && item.images.length > 0) <<< here the compiler recognizes the check
   return (
     <>
       <img src={item.images[0]} alt={""} />
     </>
   );
 } else {
   return <></>;
 }
};

CodePudding user response：

Why the eslinter for typescript is complaining about the object, that it could be possibly undefined?

The reason is because you added a ? (optional) to the property in the interface declaration.

One way to fix it is to check for undefined when rendering it with the ? operator.

<img src={item.images ? item.images[0] : ""} alt={""} />

Note that is only hiding the issue, the real solution is to make sure you don't render that element if there're no images, i.e. add a !!item.images?.length check.

CodePudding user response：

Unfortunately TypeScript does not understand what your function itemHasImages exactly does, even if it has the exact same body as an expression that TS may understand when it is inlined.

Therefore when you factorize your check in an external function, TypeScript can no longer use it to perform type narrowing (here to make sure that an optional property is actually present).

This is one of the cases where TypeScript may force us not to be "too smart" and leave an inline check.

Another acceptable solution is to force / cast the type after your check:

  if(itemHasImages(item)){
    const images = item.images as unknown as string[]; // Force type since we have externally verified it
    return (
      <>
        <img src={images[0]} alt={""} />
      </>
    );
  }

A more complex solution might be possible, by providing overload definitions for your itemHasImages function, so that TS can use them to perform type narrowing.