-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
Report generic rest parameters as unreliable variance positions #33020
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Report generic rest parameters as unreliable variance positions #33020
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good!
Might be worth checking DT for this. As it's |
@typescript-bot run dt |
Heya @weswigham, I've started to run the parallelized Definitely Typed test suite on this PR at 6c13712. You can monitor the build here. It should now contribute to this PR's status checks. |
@typescript-bot run dt |
Heya @weswigham, I've started to run the extended test suite on this PR at b47bccf. You can monitor the build here. It should now contribute to this PR's status checks. |
Heya @weswigham, I've started to run the perf test suite on this PR at b47bccf. You can monitor the build here. It should now contribute to this PR's status checks. Update: The results are in! |
Heya @weswigham, I've started to run the parallelized Definitely Typed test suite on this PR at b47bccf. You can monitor the build here. It should now contribute to this PR's status checks. |
@typescript-bot user test this 😎 |
Heya @weswigham, I've started to run the parallelized community code test suite on this PR at b47bccf. You can monitor the build here. It should now contribute to this PR's status checks. |
@weswigham Here they are:Comparison Report - master..33020
System
Hosts
Scenarios
|
The user suite test run you requested has finished and failed. I've opened a PR with the baseline diff from master. |
@ahejlsberg sign-off would be much appreciated |
Maybe add repro from #30301 and mark that as fixed. |
cc @RyanCavanaugh you bumped this from 3.7 to 3.8 yesterday - you may port to 3.7 if you wish, though. |
Fixes #32948. Only
Unreliable
rather thanUnmeasurable
since it should be that in any case where the variance result is wrong, it's because the variance is overstrict because we have more relaxed arity-based rules on the signature than tuples have.