fix: More specific return types. #28
Merged
+1
−1
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
Having a generic return type like `Function` is like using `any` it is removing type safety and causes Type Safe environments like NestJS to through errors. It is much better to specify the the return type of this higher order function. Generally I would let TypeScript infer it without the type def, however since you had it explicitly stated before I simply changed it to be more specific.
|
This change also prevents errors when using this with |
|
Thanks for the fix @wSedlacek |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Having a generic return type like
Functionis like usinganyit is removing type safety and causes Type Safe environments like NestJS to through errors. It is much better to specify the the return type of this higher order function.Generally I would let TypeScript infer it without the type def, however since you had it explicitly stated before I simply changed it to be more specific.