Skip to content

type parameter variance in generic call signature is incorrectly bivariant #63677

Description

@ahmedajiz629

🔎 Search Terms

unsound generic function assignability type parameter variance generic call signature bivariant

🕗 Version & Regression Information

  • This is the behavior in every version I tried, and I reviewed the FAQ for entries about generics and variance.

⏯ Playground Link

https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?ts=6.0.3#code/C4TwDgpgBAygFgewK4BsAmAhCBJAdgNwEMAnAS0N2AB4ARAPigF4oqAVOgCgA8AuKVgGQ0ANFBB9WASkZ1BNAFDyAxglwBnYFDUQVuNH3jJ0WPETIVqSXAGtcCAO64GzKN1EhJTBiGWqNUZGAAOSQAWwAjCGIDRFRMHAISckoqXDDI4mctHVU0eUCQiKiqK1sHJw4AFlEAcg1iGskAOmAEAFEuMFUISnIUDklFXX9SXEKMmKN40ySLVPSorO5PGVcuFvbO7t7CfslRLkHhzVGAVRs7R0m4k0TzFNLLpyYoUfGo+TOL8o464AbavVGoogA

💻 Code

type ShouldBeInvariant<D> = <T>(x: T&D, y: T)=>T&D

const second: ShouldBeInvariant<unknown> =  (x, y) => y
const outNumber: ShouldBeInvariant<number> = second
outNumber<unknown>(4, 'str').toExponential()

const inNumber: ShouldBeInvariant<number> = (x) => (x.toExponential(), x)
const inUnknown: ShouldBeInvariant<unknown> = inNumber
inUnknown('str', 'str')

🙁 Actual behavior

The code type checks, while it shouldn't because that is unsound, using ShouldBeInvariant covariantly or contravariantly both causes runtime errors.

🙂 Expected behavior

ShouldBeInvariant should be invariant against its parameter. Both assigns:

const outNumber: ShouldBeInvariant<number> = second

and

const inUnknown: ShouldBeInvariant<unknown> = inNumber

should report errors

Additional information about the issue

No response

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions