Suggestion: DeepReadonly<T> type

[mprobst]

TypeScript Version: 2.1.1 / nightly (2.2.0-dev.201xxxxx)

Code

It would be nice to have a shard, standard library type that allows to express deep readonly-ness (not really const, since methods are out of scope, but still...):

interface Y { a: number; }
interface X { y: Y; }
let x: Readonly<X> = {y: {a: 1}};
x.y.a = 2;  // Succeeds, which is expected, but it'd be nice to have a common way to express deep readonly

type DeepReadonly<T> = {
  readonly [P in keyof T]: DeepReadonly<T[P]>;
}
let deepX: DeepReadonly<X> = {y: {a: 1}};
deepX.y.a = 2; // Fails as expected!

[felixfbecker]

The same for Partial

[iRath96]

Having a DeepReadonly<T> type would probably also allow for const methods (similar to how C++ does this).

class A {
  public x: number;
  unsafe() { // `this` is of type "A"
    this.x = 2;
  }
  const safe() { // "const" causes `this` to be of type "DeepReadonly<A>"
    console.log(this.x);
    // this.x = …; would yield a compiler error here
  }
}

let a: A;
a.unsafe(); // works fine, because "a" is of type "A"
a.safe(); // works fine, because "A" is a superset of "DeepReadonly<A>"

let readonlyA: DeepReadonly<A>;
a.safe(); // works fine, because "a" is of type "DeepReadonly<A>"
a.unsafe(); // would result in an error, because "DeepReadonly<A>" is not assignable to the required `this` type ("A")

[mprobst]

This has somewhat odd behaviour for callables, e.g. when calling set on a DeepReadonly<Map<...>>:

Cannot invoke an expression whose type lacks a call signature. Type 'DeepReadonly<(key: string, value?: number | undefined) => Map<string, number>>' has no compatible call signatures.

[ChuckJonas]

@mprobst I just ran into this issue using the same type... Any idea how to fix this?

[mhegazy]

There are a few complications for the proposal in the OP, first as you noted the compiler does not know that array.psuh is a mutating function and should not be allowed, (today we work around that by having ReadOnlyArray and ReadonlyMap); second, the mapped type creates a new type, and for a recursive type comparison can be expensive, since we are not using the compiler type identity checks, resulting in worse performance. We did contamplate adding it in the library when we added Readonly and Partial and then decided against that.

#10725 would seem a better solution here.

[Dean177]

This will be possible in typescript 2.8 thanks to mapped types:

export type primitive = string | number | boolean | undefined | null
export type DeepReadonly<T> = T extends primitive ? T : DeepReadonlyObject<T>
export type DeepReadonlyObject<T> = {
  readonly [P in keyof T]: DeepReadonly<T[P]>
}

declare const shallowReadOnly: Readonly<{ a: { b: number } }>
shallowReadOnly.a.b = 2 // Ok 😞

declare const readOnly: DeepReadonly<{ a: { b: number } }>
readOnly.a.b = 2 // Error 🎉

[esamattis]

Does it work for Arrays?

[Dean177]

With a small modification it does:

export type primitive = string | number | boolean | undefined | null
export type DeepReadonly<T> =
  T extends primitive ? T :
  T extends Array<infer U> ? DeepReadonlyArray<U> :
  DeepReadonlyObject<T>

export interface DeepReadonlyArray<T> extends ReadonlyArray<DeepReadonly<T>> {}

export type DeepReadonlyObject<T> = {
  readonly [P in keyof T]: DeepReadonly<T[P]>
}

const foo: DeepReadonly<Array<number>> = [1, 2, 3]
foo[3] = 8 // Index signiture in type 'ReadonlyArray<number>' only permits reading

(ReadonlyArray is already a thing: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/interfaces.html#readonly-properties)

EDIT: Thanks @cspotcode & @mkulke

[cspotcode]

@Dean177: It doesn't make the elements of the array deeply readonly, correct? That seems like a big limitation. I tried to implement it myself and couldn't. I got errors about DeepReadonly circularly referencing itself. Seems like the numeric index signature causes problems.

[mkulke]

@cspotcode would this work?

type NonFunctionPropertyNames<T> = {
  [K in keyof T]: T[K] extends Function ? never : K
}[keyof T];

type DeepReadonlyObject<T> = {
    readonly [P in NonFunctionPropertyNames<T>]: DeepReadonly<T[P]>;
};

interface DeepReadonlyArray<T> extends ReadonlyArray<DeepReadonly<T>> {}

type DeepReadonly<T> =
  T extends any[] ? DeepReadonlyArray<T[number]> :
  T extends object ? DeepReadonlyObject<T> :
  T;

interface Step {
  length: number;
}

interface Trip {
  mode: 'TRANSIT' | 'CAR';
  steps: Step[];
}

type Trips = Trip[];

function mgns(trips: DeepReadonly<Trips>): void {
  const trip = trips[0];
  if (trip === undefined) {
    return;
  }
  trips.pop(); // readonly error
  trip.mode = 'WALK'; // readonly error
  trip.steps.push({ length: 1 }); // readonly error
  const step = trip.steps[0];
  if (step === undefined) {
    return;
  }
  step.length = 2; // readonly error
}

[cspotcode]

Yeah, that mostly does the trick, thanks! But why are you stripping methods off of the readonly objects? Is it because methods might trigger mutations? The only change I would make is replacing `T extends any[]` with `T extends ReadonlyArray<any>`. EDIT: @mkulke another thought: Function properties might also be objects with nested properties. Maybe it's better to map them as `DeepReadonlyObject`. This will preserve the nested properties and strip off the invocation signatures.

…

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Magnus Kulke ***@***.***> wrote: @cspotcode <https://github.com/cspotcode> would this work? type NonFunctionPropertyNames<T> = { [K in keyof T]: T[K] extends Function ? never : K }[keyof T]; type DeepReadonlyObject<T> = { readonly [P in NonFunctionPropertyNames<T>]: DeepReadonly<T[P]>; }; interface DeepReadonlyArray<T> extends ReadonlyArray<DeepReadonly<T>> {} type DeepReadonly<T> = T extends any[] ? DeepReadonlyArray<T[number]> : T extends object ? DeepReadonlyObject<T> : T; interface Step { length: number; } interface Trip { mode: 'TRANSIT' | 'CAR'; steps: Step[]; } type Trips = Trip[]; function mgns(trips: DeepReadonly<Trips>): void { const trip = trips[0]; if (trip === undefined) { return; } trips.pop(); // readonly error trip.mode = 'WALK'; // readonly error trip.steps.push({ length: 1 }); // readonly error const step = trip.steps[0]; if (step === undefined) { return; } step.length = 2; // readonly error } — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#13923 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAW-uCsk2KXVLWzWM_i8s0vgq4uKOeGYks5tfCFagaJpZM4L5Rm3> .

[RomkeVdMeulen]

Thank you all for your suggestions. I used them to come up with this:

export type DeepPartial<T> =
	T extends Array<infer U> ? DeepPartialArray<U> :
	T extends object ? DeepPartialObject<T> :
	T;

export type DeepPartialNoMethods<T> =
	T extends Array<infer U> ? DeepPartialArrayNoMethods<U> :
	T extends object ? DeepPartialObjectNoMethods<T> :
	T;

export interface DeepPartialArrayNoMethods<T> extends Array<DeepPartialNoMethods<T>> {}
export interface DeepPartialArray<T> extends Array<DeepPartial<T>> {}

export type DeepPartialObject<T> = {
	[P in keyof T]?: DeepPartial<T[P]>;
};

export type NonFunctionPropertyNames<T> = {
	[P in keyof T]: T[P] extends Function ? never : P;
}[keyof T];

export type DeepPartialObjectNoMethods<T> = {
	[P in NonFunctionPropertyNames<T>]?: DeepPartialNoMethods<T[P]>;
};

I personally use it like this:

class MyType {
  constructor(init?: DeepPartialNoMethods<MyType>) {
    if (init) {
      Object.assign(this, init);
    }
  }
}

EDIT: oops, forgot to do array check before object check rather than after.

[g-harel]

This package's @types has been working well for me.

https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped/blob/master/types/deep-freeze/index.d.ts

[nieltg]

This is my implementation of DeepReadonly. I named it Immutable so it doesn't clash with Readonly.

type Primitive = undefined | null | boolean | string | number | Function

type Immutable<T> =
  T extends Primitive ? T :
    T extends Array<infer U> ? ReadonlyArray<U> :
      T extends Map<infer K, infer V> ? ReadonlyMap<K, V> : Readonly<T>

type DeepImmutable<T> =
  T extends Primitive ? T :
    T extends Array<infer U> ? DeepImmutableArray<U> :
      T extends Map<infer K, infer V> ? DeepImmutableMap<K, V> : DeepImmutableObject<T>

interface DeepImmutableArray<T> extends ReadonlyArray<DeepImmutable<T>> {}
interface DeepImmutableMap<K, V> extends ReadonlyMap<DeepImmutable<K>, DeepImmutable<V>> {}
type DeepImmutableObject<T> = {
  readonly [K in keyof T]: DeepImmutable<T[K]>
}

It handles ReadonlyArray and ReadonlyMap. It also handles Function types so their instances still can be called after being applied by this modifier.

[RyanCavanaugh]

Is there anything else needed from the type system side to adequately address the use cases here?

[simast]

Is there anything else needed from the type system side to adequately address the use cases here?

@RyanCavanaugh: There is no way to mark tuple types as readonly in the language right now.

[nickserv]

I thought you could do that with tuple mapping in 3.1

[simast]

I thought you could do that with tuple mapping in 3.1

I don't believe this applies to actual tuple values, just mapped object types that have tuples as properties. Here is an example of a tuple in an object I am referring to:

const test: {
    readonly tuple: [number, string]
} = {
    tuple: [1, "dsffsd"]
}

test.tuple[0] = 2 // Works (but should be somehow marked as readonly)

[Offirmo]

I'm accidentally mutating some constant data object. I put Readonly<> everywhere, but the compiler didn't catch anything, precisely because the bug is mutating deep in the object...

So that would be much needed!

[krzkaczor]

For those interested, DeepReadonly with all edge cases covered is part of ts-essentials package.

[bitjson]

Does anyone know how to create the type ImmutableUint8Array in this function?

type ImmutableUint8Array = unknown; // <- here
const firstByte = (bin: ImmutableUint8Array) => bin[0];

I'm trying to enable the new typescript-eslint/prefer-readonly-parameter-types, but Readonly<Uint8Array> fails because property buffer is not readonly, and none of the workarounds in this issue seem to handle this case.

Here are some "tests":

const canBeAssigned: ImmutableUint8Array = Uint8Array.of(0, 0);
const canBeSpread = [...canBeAssigned];
const canRecreateFromSpreadResult = Uint8Array.from(canBeSpread);
const functionRequiringType = (bin: ImmutableUint8Array) => bin;
const canAcceptNonMutableInstance = functionRequiringType(Uint8Array.of());

And it needs to pass the recursive isTypeReadonly.

Is it possible to specify a readonly TypedArray without a built-in DeepReadonly type?

[carpben]

@bitjson , your comment doesn't relate directly to the topic of this issue - a native DeepReadonly generic type. I think comments here should refer to the need for such a feature, and/or how to implement it. I suggest you move your comment to StackOverFlow, or some other QA platform, where you are also more likely to get an answer.

[xenon]

Here's my implementation of immutability. It's a combination of my own search to make an Immutable type along with this issue in which @icesmith informed us of the ReadonlyArray, ReadonlyMap and ReadonlySet types as I was only aware of doing T extends (infer U)[] for arrays and not considering maps or sets. Although unlike icesmith I didn't see a reason to split my Immutable type into separate sub-types. I've also made a function that will make a new declaration immutable.

export type Immutable<T> =
    T extends Function | boolean | number | string | null | undefined ? T :
    T extends Array<infer U> ? ReadonlyArray<Immutable<U>> :
    T extends Map<infer K, infer V> ? ReadonlyMap<Immutable<K>, Immutable<V>> :
    T extends Set<infer S> ? ReadonlySet<Immutable<S>> :
    {readonly [P in keyof T]: Immutable<T[P]>}

export function Immutable<T>(data: T): Immutable<T> {
    Object.freeze(data);
    if (data !== null) {
        for (let p in Object.getOwnPropertyNames(data)) {
            if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(data, p) && typeof (data as any)[p] === 'object') {
                Immutable((data as any)[p]);
            }
        }
    }
    return data as Immutable<T>;
}

Example on an existing interface:

interface testobj {
    x: () => number;
    y: {n: number, f: () => string};
    a:  number[]
}
const o: Immutable<testobj> = ({
    x: () => { return 5; },
    y: {
        n: 5,
        f: () => 'hello',
    },
    a: [1, 2, 3],
});

o = o; // fails: 'o' is constant (because of const)
o.x() === 5; // true
o.y.n = 6; // fails: n 'readonly'
o.y.f = () => 'changed'; // fails: 'f' readonly 
o.y.f() === 'hello'; // true
o.a[2] = 4; // fails: index signature only permits reading

Make a type immutable without a proper type AND immutable at runtime:

const o = Immutable({
    ... (as o in the last example except untyped) ...
});
o = o; // fails: 'o' is constant (because of const)
o.x() === 5; // true, function call is allowed
o.y.n = 6; // fails: n 'readonly'
o.y.f = () => 'changed'; // fails: 'f' readonly 
o.y.f() === 'hello'; // true
o.a[2] = 4; // fails: index signature only permits reading

Of course if one wants both run-time readonly and typed readonly just combine them

const o : Immutable<testobj> = Immutable({ ...});

I didn't use export because I'm a typescript noob and I don't know how 'export' works. EDIT: It's actually pretty easy to use export and I've added it in.

[Offirmo]

@icesmith unfortunately your suggestion breaks tuples... [FIX AT THE END of this post]

This code works (obviously):

function testTuple(tuple: [number, string]): void {}
// @ts-expect-error
testTuple([])
// @ts-expect-error
testTuple(['foo'])

This works:

function testTuple(tuple: readonly [number, string]): void {}
// @ts-expect-error
testTuple([])
// @ts-expect-error
testTuple(['foo'])

This DOESN'T work:

function testTuple(tuple: Immutable<[number, string]>): void {}
// @ts-expect-error
testTuple([])
// @ts-expect-error
testTuple(['foo'])

tuple type gets downgraded to Array[number | string]

I'm trying to find a solution...

[edit] it's trivial to solve it thanks to #26063 !
Just remove the second line and treat tuples as objects:

export type Immutable<T> =
  T extends ImmutablePrimitive ? T :
  //T extends Array<infer U> ? ImmutableArray<U> :   <-- not needed
  T extends Map<infer K, infer V> ? ImmutableMap<K, V> :
  T extends Set<infer M> ? ImmutableSet<M> : ImmutableObject<T>; 

// This works for objects, arrays and tuples:
export type ImmutableObject<T> = { readonly [K in keyof T]: Immutable<T[K]> };

[marekdedic]

Hi,
I'd like to point out that the current approaches are incompatible with some very common types - for example, HTMLElement. Using the version from type-fest, I get error TS2345: Argument of type 'HTMLElement' is not assignable to parameter of type 'ReadonlyObjectDeep<HTMLElement>'.

As far as I understand this, the problem is that the type references itself somewhere down the line and that breaks this solution. Any TS-native version should probably handle this.

[Offirmo]

@marekdedic how is my version working?

[marekdedic]

@Offirmo not working - your version doesn't handle call signatures at all. See sindresorhus/type-fest#359 for relevant discussion and links. However, AFAIK, this cannot be done without a change in TS itself :/

[scottjmaddox]

@icesmith's / @Offirmo's solution works well enough within a single function, but the type checker is perfectly happy to pass an immutably typed value into a function that accepts a standard (mutably typed) value, which limits the usefulness. Rust is still the only language I'm aware of that gets this right.

[adrian-gierakowski]

Rust is still the only language I'm aware of that gets this right.

There’s also Haskell 😉

[alamothe]

Kotlin too.

[scottjmaddox]

There’s also Haskell 😉

Making everything immutable is cheating 😁

Kotlin too.

Haven't used to, but that's good to hear.

[Offirmo]

@scottjmaddox could you share an example??

[scottjmaddox]

@Offirmo Something like this:

interface Foo { num: number }
function foo_mut(foo: Foo) { foo.num = 1; }
function foo_imm(foo: Immutable<Foo>) { foo_mut(foo); }

[FStefanni]

Hi,

just to add another corner case which is not covered: distinguish between a generic object type and a class type.
In all recursive type definitions, as DeepPartial, DeepReadonly, etc., we could like to skip classes, but recurse into plain objects.
For example:

class MyClass 
{
     f: number = 0;
};

type Struct = {
    a: number;
    b: {
        bb1: boolean;
        bb2: MyClass;
    };
};

In this example, I would like to perform a deep partial, skipping the field of type MyClass, obtaining something like:

type PartialStruct = {
    a?: number;
    b?: {
        bb1?: boolean;
        bb2?: MyClass;
    };
};

The rationale is: being a class instance value, allows for two possibilities:

• it is present, with all its fields (how could you instantiate a partial of a class? new MyClass() will always create a full class instance!)
• it is not present

I have performed a lot of tests, but none worked properly, so I believe that checking for a class type is truly a missing feature.

Finally, it could be nice to have a generic type utility to make something deep:

type Deepify = ...
type DeepPartial<T> = Deepify<T, Partial>; // this syntax does not work!

But also this seems not obvious (or currently not supported).

Regards.

[GermanJablo]

I have tried to compile all the contributions of this issue:

• (comment) @Dean177 proposes the first implementation
• (comment) When asked by @esamattis about whether it works with Arrays, @Dean177 realizes that it does not and corrects his implementation.
• (comment) @RomkeVdMeulen makes a clear effort to exclude methods. I don't know if when he made that comment it was necessary, but at least now with the latest version of TS I can confirm that using readonly on objects does not allow you to use methods.
• (comment) @nieltg modifies @Dean177's implementation to include maps and Function, and proposes calling the type DeepImmutable instead of DeepReadOnly to avoid collisions/confusion (I think it's a good idea)
• (comment) @paps proposes a modification to "handle unknown". In my opinion, this comment can be dismissed, since the code doesn't actually do anything.
• (comment) @carpben says that as of TS 3.4, object readonly should also work for arrays, but for some reason it doesn't, and it's still necessary to use ReadonlyArray
• (comment) @carpben proposes checking if T extends object and leaving the primitives as fallback instead of the other way around, as it results in a cleaner and more compact syntax (I agree)
• (comment) @icesmith has a comment with quite a few upvotes, but while he seems to be "correcting" the proposals so far, he basically says that (1) in TS 3.7 you can do type A = type B instead of interface A extends B {}, and (2) then mentions something about immer that has nothing to do with the discussion of this issue.
• (comment) @xenon is the first to mention Sets. I don't know why no one mentioned it before as it was done with maps or arrays. It's a nice addition, as it allows reading methods like has to be used while prohibiting write methods like add.
• (comment) @Offirmo notes that PR Improved mapped type support for arrays and tuples #26063 now improves Readonly so that it is no longer necessary to handle arrays separately. In fact, @Offirmo seems to suggest that not only is it not necessary, but it is preferable since it can cause problems. However, I don't understand his example very well, or at least I couldn't reproduce it in the playground. Anyway, I have verified that everything works fine without using ReadOnlyArray, (that is, mutation methods like push are prohibited but read methods like at or find are allowed).

Based on all this, my proposal is the following:

type DeepImmutable<T> =
  T extends Map<infer K, infer V>
    ? ReadonlyMap<DeepImmutable<K>, DeepImmutable<V>>
    : T extends Set<infer S>
      ? ReadonlySet<DeepImmutable<S>>
      : T extends object
        ? { readonly [K in keyof T]: DeepImmutable<T[K]> }
        : T;

Optional: if you like it, you can extract ImmutableMap, ImmutableSet and
ImmutableObject as separate types.

[Gr3q]

@GermanJablo

What happens if I have this code? From usability perspective these should fail.

const immutableArr: DeepImmutable<T[]> = [];
const immutableObjArr: DeepImmutable<T>[] = [];
let mutableArr: T[] = []
mutableArr = immutableArr.filter(x => x);
mutableArr = immutableObjArr;

Edit:

T in this case should be

interface OnlyPrimitivesTestObj {
   test1: boolean;
   test2: string;
   test3: number;
}