Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale
SignatureView["verify"]can always take anyByteView—meaning it won't misbehave or throw an error. Presumably, it will only succeed if the types match (along with the actual data), but you're allowed to callverify()when it might fail. In fact, that's its whole purpose. 🙂Before this change,
SignatureViewis contravariant in its type parameterT. This means that aSignatureViewof a more specific type, likeSignatureView<string>, cannot be assigned where aSignatureViewof a broader type is expected, likeSignatureView<unknown>. The reasoning from TypeScript's perspective makes sense:SignatureView<unknown>'sverify()can be called with anyByteView, butSignatureView<string>'sverify()can only be called with aByteView<string>. If you assign aSignatureView<string>to aSignatureView<unknown>location, the code will no longer know to callverify()on it only with aByteView<string>. It would appear perfectly valid to TypeScript to call it with aByteView<number>, for instance, which is supposed to be invalid.But actually, calling it with a
ByteView<number>would be fine, it would just (presumably) return an{ error: ... }object to signal that the signature doesn't verify.Playground Example
This becomes an issue, for instance, in Ucanto, where function which takes a
Receipt, but doesn't care what the type of itsoutvalue is, can currently only take aReceiptwhoseouttype is exactly as unknown.Playground Example