Allow extending types referenced through interfaces

[inad9300]

Suggestion

Allow things like the following:

interface I extends HTMLElementTagNameMap['abbr'] {}

Currently, the following error message is given: "An interface can only extend an identifier/qualified-name with optional type arguments." Which I don't even understand.

I believe it requires no further clarification or justification, but please let me know if that is the case...

[fatcerberus]

That error message could definitely be worded better. "An interface can't extend an expression" would probably be clearer (and more concise!).

I don't know about the "qualified-name" part (kind of weird) but "identifier with optional type arguments" basically just means you can either extends Foo or extends Foo<T>. And then if Foo is declared as, like,

interface Foo<T = any>
{
    /* magic goes here */
}

You can just extends Foo again without passing in a type. On the other hand HTMLElementTagNameMap['abbr'], taken as a whole, is not an identifier - it's an identifier with an indexing operator after it, making it an expression. A type-level expression, but an expression nonetheless.

That said, I don't see any theoretical reason why this couldn't work. Might be pretty useful. 👍

[AnyhowStep]

What if the expression is a conditional type?

[dragomirtitian]

@AnyhowStep It might be a conditional type hiding behind a type alias right now as well, that works under certain conditions and errors under others. Same rules should apply.

[fatcerberus]

Another point in favor of this is that class C extends <expression>, where the expression evaluates to a constructor at runtime, is legal (one of the reasons why classes aren’t hoisted), so there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to do the same with interfaces, at the type level.

[RyanCavanaugh]

In principle it's doable - we can detect when the resolved entity is a legal extends target

[coreh]

As long as you assign the type a name it works, and it does the proper check already:

interface Bar {}
interface Baz {}

// This doesn't work
interface Foo extends (Bar & Baz) {}

// This works
type _tmp = Bar & Baz;
interface Foo extends _tmp {};

// This fails with a meaningful error message:
// > An interface can only extend an object type or intersection of object types with statically known members. ts(2312)
type _tmp2 = Bar | Baz;
interface Foo extends _tmp2 {};

So IMO we should definitely support the anonymous/expression version of this for orthogonality/consistency

[Tyriar]

I just hit this. It's a hassle to need the extra type alias below to workaround this and also agree the error message isn't great.

const enum Key {
  A = 'a'
}

interface IMapped {
  [Key.A]: ITarget
}

interface ITarget {
  foo: number;
}

function f(
  arg: IMapped[Key.A] // Works fine
) {
  arg.foo; // Works fine
}

// An interface can only extend an identifier/qualified-name with optional type arguments.(2499)
interface IExtended extends IMapped[Key.A] {
}

// Workaround
type Alias = IMapped[Key.A];
interface IExtended2 extends Alias {
}

Playground link

[tadhgmister]

Wrapping the expression in a NO_OP that just resolves to the generic it is given works here, surely typescript is smart enough these days we can drop this restriction with relative ease?

playground link

interface A{
  field : {
    foo: any, bar: any
  }
}
// this is invalid - error 2499 
// An interface can only extend an identifier/qualified-name with optional type arguments.
interface B extends A["field"] {}

type NO_OP<T> = T
// this is valid though?
interface C extends NO_OP<A["field"]> {}

I really don't want to start writing code that actually relies on a "do nothing" type in order to get around seemingly useless restrictions...

[rotu]

It even fails if the type is just an otherwise legal name in parentheses, or a literal object type!

interface A{}
// works
interface B extends A {}
// fails: "An interface can only extend an identifier/qualified-name with optional type arguments."
interface B extends (A) {}
// fails: "An interface can only extend an identifier/qualified-name with optional type arguments."
interface B extends {x:number} {}

Workbench Repro

[typescript-bot]

👋 Hi, I'm the Repro bot. I can help narrow down and track compiler bugs across releases! This comment reflects the current state of this repro running against the nightly TypeScript.

---

Comment by @rotu

❌ Failed: -

• An interface can only extend an identifier/qualified-name with optional type arguments.
• An interface can only extend an identifier/qualified-name with optional type arguments.

Historical Information

Version	Reproduction Outputs
4.9.3, 5.0.2, 5.1.3, 5.2.2, 5.3.2	❌ Failed: - An interface can only extend an identifier/qualified-name with optional type arguments. An interface can only extend an identifier/qualified-name with optional type arguments.

[RyanCavanaugh]

The error really does mean exactly what it says 🙃

[rotu]

The error really does mean exactly what it says 🙃

lol. I think it's a little more confusing because types are not nominal. That is, the interface extends "the type referenced by Foo", not "the identifier Foo".

Ideally, I'd like to see the issue resolved by allowing the base type to be a type expression per this issue. But it would be a step in the right direction to reword the message to "An interface's base type must be identified by name (possibly with optional type arguments)".