TypeScript Contribution Diary: Filtering Out Types From JavaScript-Only Import Suggestions

Jerry the cat looking, ah, import-ant.

Do you write “vanilla” JavaScript (rather than TypeScript) in VS Code? If so, have you ever seen the editor suggest importing a type even though types aren’t usable in .js/co. files?

Those suggestions are powered by TypeScript, and I improved them to no longer suggest types in JavaScript-only files. This blog post details how I wrote and updated that pull request to TypeScript.

Problem Statement

#53339: Filter out types from esm import suggestions in JavaScript was filed on TypeScript in March of 2023. It states that at the time, when working in a JavaScript file, TypeScript would still suggest type-only constructs such as interfaces in import statement auto-completions.

Seeing those types in import completion lists is a little inconvenient given that they can’t be used in JavaScript file imports. That’s also a little misleading for folks who might be still new to TypeScript and not clear on the difference between type and value spaces.

I figured this would be a fun contribution to get in: filtering out entries from import statements if they’re not applicable to the file being imported into.

Spoiler: here’s the resultant pull request. ✨

Digging Into Completions

My first question was: where do completions come from?

I first looked for resolved issues also tagged as Domain: Completion Lists to check for previous pull requests that showed which code areas I’d need to touch. A good first PR I found was fix(52879): No autocompletions after the typeof keyword inside JSDoc comments from long-time frequent contributor @a-tarasyuk. It showed edits to src/services/completions.ts, in particular to a getCompletionsAtPosition function. That seemed like a good place to start!

Getting Completions at a Position

I read through the getCompletionsAtPosition function’s body. The first few dozen lines seemed to be around edge cases and caching. But later down it had an area that seemed to retrieve the real completions I’d care about, then create a new statement based on the type of completion data.

It looked a bit like this:

const completionData = getCompletionData(program, log, /* ... */);

switch (completionData.kind) {
	case CompletionDataKind.Data:
		return completionInfoFromData(/* ... */);
	// ...
	case CompletionDataKind.JsDocTagName:
		return jsdocCompletionInfo(/* ... */);
	// ...
	case CompletionDataKind.JSDocTag:
		return jsdocCompletionInfo(/* ... */);
	// ...
}

I put a breakpoint on the switch and launched a local reproduction of the issue in the VS Code debugger. The breakpoint hit and showed completionData.kind to be CompletionDataKind.Data.

I poked around the getCompletionData function a bit but didn’t find anything particularly useful in it for filtering out data. It was returning a bunch of data, only some of which made it to the completions suggested in my editor.

Next step: digging into completionInfoFromData.

Getting Completions From Data

The completionInfoFromData function also seemed to start with a bit of edge case handling. Its first area of code relevant to filtering completion data was around creating an entries array of completions, then populating it with a getCompletionEntriesFromSymbols method.

Again simplifying the code a bit:

const entries = createSortedArray<CompletionEntry>();
const uniqueNames = getCompletionEntriesFromSymbols(symbols, entries /* ... */);

It felt reasonable that getCompletionEntriesFromSymbols was a place I’d want to add my new filtering logic. As the entries array was sorted, removing items later on would probably be less efficient than not adding them in the first place.

Getting Completion Entries From Symbols

The getCompletionEntriesFromSymbols function takes roughly two steps of note:

1. It creates a uniques = new Map<string, boolean>() variable to track unique completion names
2. It loops over all its provided symbols, adding an entry to uniques if some a createCompletionEntry function was able to create one

My first instinct was to add my new filtering logic to the start of createCompletionEntry. I added a check that if we’re in a JavaScript source file and the provided symbol doesn’t have a runtime value (i.e. is only in type land), then we can bail out of creating a completion entry:

if (isInJSFile(sourceFile) && !symbolHasValueDeclaration(symbol)) {
	return undefined;
}

As for how to write that symbolHasValueDeclaration function, I couldn’t find any good existing implementation in the codebase. So I went with a check over the symbol’s declarations to see if any are something other than an interface or type:

function symbolHasValueDeclaration(symbol: Symbol): boolean {
	return !!symbol?.declarations?.some((declaration) => {
		switch (declaration.kind) {
			case SyntaxKind.InterfaceDeclaration:
			case SyntaxKind.TypeAliasDeclaration:
				return false;
			default:
				return true;
		}
	});
}

I tried rebuilding TypeScript’s services locally and running the issue reproduction locally. It worked! My import completions in the JavaScript file for entries in a TypeScript no longer included any interfaces or types.

Testing Completion Entry Filtering

The TypeScript repository includes “fourslash” tests that can declare configuration values, contents of tests files, and expected user actions. “Fourslash” refers to the //// (four slashes) comments in those tests that are placed before contents of test files.

You can see roughly the reproduction I was working with from the test case I added to the repo:

// tests/cases/fourslash/jsFileImportNoTypes.ts
/// <reference path="fourslash.ts" />

// @allowJs: true

// @filename: /declarations.ts
//// export class TestClass {}
//// export const testValue = {};
//// export enum TestEnum {}
//// export function testFunction() {}
//// export interface testInterface {}
//// export namespace TestNamespace {}
//// export type testType = {};
////
//// export interface TestInterfaceMerged {}
//// export interface TestInterfaceMerged {}
////
//// export interface TestClassInterfaceMerged {}
//// export class TestClassInterfaceMerged {}

// @filename: /a.js
////import { /**/ } from './declarations.ts'

verify.baselineCompletions();

That test case uses TypeScript’s fourslash test harness to see what completions would trigger (verify.baselineCompletions()) at a specific location inside the import (marked by the /**/).

I wrote up a quick commit message and PR description, then sent this in as a draft PR: #53619 > commits > bf9dd2. I also started a npx hereby runtests run locally to run all TypeScript tests.

Test Failures on Existing JS File Tests

Sadly, there were some test failures on existing tests. This was the output from the one of them:

  2) fourslash tests
       tests/cases/fourslash/completionInJsDocQualifiedNames.ts
         fourslash test completionInJsDocQualifiedNames.ts runs correctly:
     Error: At marker '': Includes: completion 'T' not found.

This was the associated tests/cases/fourslash/completionInJsDocQualifiedNames.ts:

/// <reference path="fourslash.ts" />

// @allowJs: true

// @Filename: /node_modules/foo/index.d.ts
/////** tee */
////export type T = number;

// @Filename: /a.js
////import * as Foo from "foo";
/////** @type {Foo./**/} */
////const x = 0;

verify.completions({
	marker: "",
	includes: {
		name: "T",
		text: "type T = number",
		documentation: "tee",
		kind: "type",
		kindModifiers: "export,declare",
	},
});

In other words, the test was letting me know that my change stopped the type import inside a /** @type {Foo.} */ JSDoc type. That’s not good. My change should only apply to users importing in value-only spaces, such as imports. JSDoc @types are a valid place to import types from.

Allowing JSDoc Type Imports

I was bummed that my nice clean changed needed more nuance. Nothing else inside createCompletionEntry seemed like a reasonable place to apply the filtering logic.

On the other hand, I noticed during debugging that one of the parameters to getCompletionEntriesFromSymbols was already an isTypeOnlyLocation?: boolean. That seemed like a relevant, useful bit of data to use!

I moved my PR’s added logic to inside the for loop over symbols:

if (
	!isTypeOnlyLocation &&
	isInJSFile(sourceFile) &&
	!symbolHasValueDeclaration(symbol)
) {
	continue;
}

That fixed the failing test cases. Excellent.

#53619 > commits > c7ff6b.

Review Round One: Naming and Symbol Flags

Once the TypeScript CI processes all passed, I marked the PR as ready for review. I was still dissatisfied with my symbolHasValueDeclaration function so I posted a comment asking for a better way:

Is there a better way to check? I searched around for /is.*type.*only/ & similar but couldn’t find anything.

@Andarist and @RyanCavanaugh discussed in the thread:

• @Andarist suggested I add a test case with verbatimModuleSyntax: true
• @RyanCavanaugh indicated flags tells you what meaning(s) a symbol has

I added #53619 > commits > 3773af with a few more pieces of sample data in my new jsFileImportNoTypes.ts fourslash test. We discussed symbol.flags briefly and after trying a few variations of it I ended up keeping roughly the same approach (#53619 > commits > b4b7b9).

The added code roughly looked like this:

// Inside getCompletionEntriesFromSymbols:
// When in a value-time location in a JS file, ignore symbols that definitely seem to be type-only
if (
	!isTypeOnlyLocation &&
	isInJSFile(sourceFile) &&
	!symbolMayHaveValueDeclaration(symbol)
) {
	continue;
}

/**
 * When filling completions for value-time locations in JS files, we'll want
 * to only consider symbols that seem to have a value declaration. If a
 * symbol no known declarations we cautiously include them just to be safe.
 */
function symbolMayHaveValueDeclaration(symbol: Symbol): boolean {
	return (
		!symbol?.declarations?.length ||
		symbol.declarations.some((declaration) => {
			switch (declaration.kind) {
				case SyntaxKind.InterfaceDeclaration:
				case SyntaxKind.TypeAliasDeclaration:
					return false;
				default:
					return true;
			}
		})
	);
}

Symbol Flags, Finally

@Andarist left two additional helpful reviews:

• Commenting on the naming: that the double-negation in logic around !symbolMayHaveValueDeclaration was a little harder to reason about than it needed to be.
• Commenting on namespaces along with @sandersn: I was still interested in using symbol.flags, as that would help deal with unforeseen edge cases in imports such as type-only namespaces.

After some fiddling with different values in code I found the following two metrics to be enough for the existing test cases:

• !(symbol.flags & SymbolFlags.Value): Filtered out most (but not all) symbols that weren’t known to have any well-defined value backing
• !isInJSFile(symbol.declarations?.[0]?.getSourceFile()): Caught remaining symbols that didn’t have full symbol info populated due to being defined in a JS file

That meant I was able to reduce to just one change in the getCompletionEntriesFromSymbols loop:

// Inside getCompletionEntriesFromSymbols:
if (
	!isTypeOnlyLocation &&
	isInJSFile(sourceFile) &&
	!(symbol.flags & SymbolFlags.Value) &&
	!isInJSFile(symbol.declarations?.[0]?.getSourceFile())
) {
	continue;
}

#53619 > commits > dd9ff9 showed passing test cases with this new, trimmed down logic.

Review Round Two: JSDoc Types

@Andarist yet again posted a helpful comment pointing out a flaw in my logic: I’d assumed anything exported from a JS file would be a JS runtime value. But JS files in TypeScript actually can export types using JSDoc:

// types.js
/**
 * @typedef {Object} Pet
 * @prop {string} name
 */
module.exports = { a: 1 };

Good call.

#53619 > commits > 5644a4 added a bit more logic to account for type exports in JS files. Now, in addition to checking if a symbol’s declaration was in a JS file, it would also check if the symbol explicitly had SymbolFlags.Type set. I also re-extracted back to a function:

function symbolAppearsToBeTypeOnly(symbol: Symbol): boolean {
	return (
		!(symbol.flags & SymbolFlags.Value) &&
		(!isInJSFile(symbol.declarations?.[0]?.getSourceFile()) ||
			!!(symbol.flags & SymbolFlags.Type))
	);
}

Review Round Three: Namespaces

The third round of PR review was a bit less consequential than the first two. @sandersn asked about namespaces and suggested adding a type for export type testNamespacedType inside a namespace.

#53619 > commits > 9eecdd added a bit of testing around type exports in JS files. The test cases worked as expected already. The following two namespaces without types weren’t suggested.

//// export namespace TestNamespaceEmpty {}
//// export namespace TestNamespaceWithType {
////   export type testTypeInner = boolean;
//// }

Aside: Formatting Changes

A few of the commits in the PR’s history involved formatting changes. That’s because TypeScript didn’t use a dedicated formatter through the middle of 2023. Most of its formatting was done either by occasional ESLint formatting rules (which have since been deprecated) or by feedback in pull requests.

Since then, TypeScript adopted dprint for auto-formatting. Hooray!

Review Round Four: File Checking Simplification

One final round of review from @sandersn left a couple of interesting points:

• Since something being in a JS file didn’t mean it couldn’t be typed, there might not be a need to check isInJSFile
• isInJSFile uses flags set on every node, so calling .getSourceFile() seemed unnecessary

I tried removing or deferring the isInJSFile check in a few different ways but each attempt resulted in test failures. Darn.

But, removing .getSourceFile() did work. Yay!

#53619 > commits > 8de257.

A week later, @sandersn merged the PR. TypeScript >=5.3 now include the language server improvements. 🥳

Final Thanks

Thanks as always to @Andarist for helping review the PR. So much that it was more than reasonable for me to add Mateusz as a co-author 😄.

Thanks to @RyanCavanaugh and @sandersn for reviewing and merging the PR from the TypeScript team’s side. Additional thanks to @awerlogus for reporting the issue in the first place.

You can also see my live coding stream from April 13th, 2023 for working on the first round of PR reviews. The chat there was helpful in finding an off comment of mine - final thanks to the folks in the chat then.

Cheers! 🙌

Liked this post? Thanks! Let the world know: