I am trying to write a type safe map object. I want to define my key/value pairs once and only once.
I have succeeded with the following:
const myPropTuple = [
[0, "cat"],
[1, "dog"],
[2, "bird"]
] as const;
type TMyPropKey = TInnerTupple<typeof myPropTuple>[0];
type TMyPropValue = TInnerTupple<typeof myPropTuple>[1];
function getMyProp(val: number) {
type TKey = TInnerTupple<typeof myPropTuple>[0];
const mapA2 = new Map(myPropTuple);
if(!mapA2.has(val as TKey)) throw new RangeError("unexpected value");
return mapA2.get(val as TKey);
}
// helper library (not to be inlined)
type TTupleType<T extends Iterable<any>> = T extends ReadonlyArray<infer R> ? R :never;
type TInnerTupple<I extends Iterable<any>> = TTupleType<I>;
// Tests
console.assert(getMyProp(1) === "dog");
//console.assert(getMyProp(1) === "turle"); // throws compiler error
const a: TMyPropValue = "cat";
//const b: TMyPropValue = "eagle"; // throws compiler error
But I would like make the function generic and still maintain type safety:
The goal is to be able to write
const myPropTuple = [
[0, "cat"],
[1, "dog"],
[2, "bird"]
] as const;
console.assert(getGenericProp(myPropTuple, 1) === "dog");
const yourPropTuple = [
[0, "fish"],
[1, "towel"],
[2, "whale"]
] as const;
console.assert(getGenericProp(yourPropTuple, 0) === "fish");
and for the following to fail to compile
console.assert(getGenericProp(myPropTuple, 1) === "turle"); // throws compiler error
type TYourPropValue = TInnerTupple<typeof yourPropTuple>[1];
const y: TYourPropValue = "dog"; // throws compiler error
addendum
@jcalz suggested an alternate solution which has the cardinal virtue of simplicity, so I will repeat it here slightly expanded:
const animalProps = {
0: "cat",
1: "dog",
2: "bird"
} as const;
function getGenericProp2<T extends object>(props: T, val: keyof T): T[keyof T] {
const found = props[val];
if(found === undefined) throw new RangeError("unexpected value");
return found;
}
type TValues = ValueOf<typeof animalProps>;
type TKeys = keyof typeof animalProps;
You could write it this way:
function getGenericProp<T extends readonly [any, any]>(
propTuple: readonly T[], val: T[0]
) {
const mapA2: Map<T[0], T[1]> = new Map(propTuple);
if (!mapA2.has(val)) throw new RangeError("unexpected value");
return mapA2.get(val);
}
It is generic in the type of the elements of propTuple
, which we expect to be a union of readonly
2-tuples. The type of val
is T[0]
, one of the first elements of each pair inside propTuple
. And the return type is T[1] | undefined
. T[1]
means one of the second elements of each pair inside propTuple
, and the undefined
happens because Map.get()
can return undefined
regardless of whether you've checked has()
first (see Why `map.has()` doesn't act as a type guard. This was also true of your non-generic version, so addressing it is out of scope here).
Anyway you can verify that it works as desired:
const myPropTuple = [
[0, "cat"],
[1, "dog"],
[2, "bird"]
] as const;
console.assert(getGenericProp(myPropTuple, 1) === "dog"); // okay
const yourPropTuple = [
[0, "fish"],
[1, "towel"],
[2, "whale"]
] as const;
console.assert(getGenericProp(yourPropTuple, 0) === "fish"); // okay
console.assert(getGenericProp(myPropTuple, 1) === "turtle"); // error!
// This comparison appears to be unintentional because the types
// '"cat" | "dog" | "bird" | undefined' and '"turtle"' have no overlap.
getGenericProp(myPropTuple, 3) // error!
// Argument of type '3' is not assignable to parameter of type '0 | 2 | 1'.
Looks good.
Note that the function doesn't know which of the outputs are returned for a particular input, and such a thing would be possible... but Map
s aren't really meant for that. You could try refactoring Map
's typings to pay attention to that, as shown in Typescript: How can I make entries in an ES6 Map based on an object key/value type, but that suggests instead of a tuple of tuples you really just want an object:
const obj = {
0: "cat",
1: "dog",
2: "bird"
} as const;
const val = obj[1];
// const val: "dog"
but now you don't need a function at all, for just an indexing operation. But this is also out of scope for the question as asked.