No implicit any error on call in JS but not in TS

[ziadkh0]

Bug Report

🔎 Search Terms

js, overload

🕗 Version & Regression Information

This is the behavior in every version I tried, and I reviewed the FAQ entries but non apply.

⏯ Playground Link

JS version playground link with relevant code
TS version playground link with relevant code

💻 Code

JS version:

/**
 * @template T
 * @template U
 * @typedef {T & { [K in Exclude<keyof U, keyof T>]?: never }} ButNot
 */

/**
 * @template T
 *
 * @overload
 * @param {ButNot<T, Function>} [context]
 * @returns {void}
 *
 * @overload
 * @param {(index: number) => any} mapFn
 * @param {T} [context]
 * @returns {void}
 */
function foo() {}

//   v- ❌ ERROR: Parameter 'k' implicitly has an 'any' type. (7006)
foo((k) => [k]);

// No errors ✅
foo((k) => [k], undefined);

TS version:

type ButNot<T, U> = T & { [K in Exclude<keyof U, keyof T>]?: never };

function foo<T>(context?: ButNot<T, Function>): void;
function foo<T>(mapFn: (index: number) => any, context?: T): void;
function foo() {}

// No errors ✅
foo((k) => [k]);

ButNot is as @RyanCavanaugh suggested in #4196 (comment).

🙁 Actual behavior

Parameter 'k' implicitly has an 'any' type. error in JS version but not TS one.

🙂 Expected behavior

No errors.

PS: This feels like a bug to me but I'm not sure if there's another way to achieve the expected outcome.

[IllusionMH]

Do you see same behavior if you declare all types and overloads in TS, and only try use it in JS (instead of JS docs declaration)?
To exclude difference between JSDoc and TS declarations.

May be related to #39509

[ziadkh0]

Do you see same behavior if you declare all types and overloads in TS, and only try use it in JS (instead of JS docs declaration)?

Type declarations:

type ButNot<T, U> = T & { [K in Exclude<keyof U, keyof T>]?: never };

declare function foo<T>(context?: ButNot<T, Function>): void;
declare function foo<T>(mapFn: (index: number) => any, context?: T): void;

In JS:

// No errors ✅
//   v- ❌ (parameter) k: any
foo((k) => [k]);

// No errors ✅
//   v- ✅ (parameter) k: number
foo((k) => [k], undefined);

In TS:

// No errors ✅
//   v- ✅ (parameter) k: number
foo((k) => [k]);

// No errors ✅
//   v- ✅ (parameter) k: number
foo((k) => [k], undefined);

[sandersn]

Experimenting with 3 overload signatures shows that only the first fails to get the type parameter. I'm not sure what's going on but at least I'm pretty sure it's not parsing.

Here's the variant I ended up with:

/**
 * @template T
 * @overload
 * @param {(index: number) => any} mapFn
 * @param {T} [context]
 * @returns {void}
 *
 * @overload
 * @param {Partial<T>} [bipartite]
 * @returns {void}
 *
 * @overload
 * @param {ButNot<T, Function>} [admissible]
 * @returns {void}
 */
function foo(admitation) {}

[sandersn]

Confusingly, type baselines for this test case are correct. But the call still has the error from the OP:

// @checkJs: true
// @allowJs: true
// @strict: true
// @noEmit: true
// @filename: /overloadTag4.js
/**
 * @template T
 * @template U
 * @typedef {T & { [K in Exclude<keyof U, keyof T>]?: never }} ButNot
 */

/**
 * @template T
 * @overload
 * @param {ButNot<T, Function>} [admissible]
 * @returns {void}
 * @overload
 * @param {(index: number) => any} mapFn
 * @param {T} [context]
 * @returns {void}
 *
 * @param {any} admitation
 */
function foo(admitation) { !!admitation }
foo(x => [x])

[sandersn]

I tested signature help some more, and it behaves the same in JS and TS--the first signature is instantiated and the others are not. Confusing but probably intentional.

Quick info is not good at specifying which signature was selected in a call, but it turns out both TS and JS select the same signature: the mapFn one. Both fail to make any inferences since context is not provided. The difference is that in JS a type parameter without inferences is constrained to any; in TS it's constrainted to unknown:

    function getDefaultTypeArgumentType(isInJavaScriptFile: boolean): Type {
        return isInJavaScriptFile ? anyType : unknownType;
    }

The inferred any causes a noImplicitAny error.

"strict": true and "checkJs": true is a combination that may lead to problems because checkJs needs to support very loose JS code, but also JS-in-TS code. In this case, JS-in-TS has its usability hurt by a loose-JS design decision.

[ziadkh0]

Thank you @sandersn for getting to the bottom of this issue.
How would you explain the outcome of the test in #55062 (comment) (TS infers correct type for callback parameter but not JS)?

[sandersn]

In TS, T=unknown, so there's no implicit any error on k: unknown.
In JS, T=any, so there IS an implicit any error on k: any, since it was not explicitly declared.

In both cases, the same overload is chosen and there are no inference sources for T, so you're getting the default type parameter type for JS (any) vs TS (unknown).