fix: improve types for .attrs()

[uhyo]

closes #4076 closes #4138 closes #4183

Hello, the above issue is blocking us from upgrading to v6, so here is a possible fix.

Improvement

The improvement brought by this PR can be seen in this example:

  const DivWithRequiredFooBar = styled.div<{ foo: number; bar: string }>``;

  // foo is provided, so it becomes optional
  const DivWithRequiredBar = styled(DivWithRequiredFooBar).attrs({ foo: 42 })`
    margin; ${props => props.foo * 10}px;
  `;
  // @ts-expect-error must provide bar
  <DivWithRequiredBar />;
  // OK (NEW)
  <DivWithRequiredBar bar="3" />;
  // OK. Can still provide foo if we want
  <DivWithRequiredBar foo={3} bar="3" />;
  // @ts-expect-error foo must be a number
  <DivWithRequiredBar foo="3" bar="3" />;

The part marked as (NEW) is made possible by this PR. Once foo is provided through the .attrs call, the resulting component (DivWithRequiredBar) no longer requires foo as a prop.

Implementation

To achieve this, the Styled interface now has distinction between Outer props and Inner props:

  const DivWithRequiredBar = styled(DivWithRequiredFooBar).attrs({ foo: 42 })`
    // ↓ `props` here is the inner props which have undergone the defaulting,
    // so `props.foo` is always supplied (not optional)
    margin; ${props => props.foo * 10}px;
  `;
  // User of the resulting component sees the outer props,
  // so foo is optional here
  <DivWithRequiredBar bar="3" />;

Thus the Styled interface now has new InnerProps type attribute. It is usually same as OuterProps, but the updated attrs() types can make them diverge.

[AntonNiklasson]

@quantizor I'm trying to run 6.1.9, but it seems like that version contains an older version of the code. Was this change actually included in the published code?

[AntonNiklasson]

Perhaps I'm missing something. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do though 🤷‍♂️

[uhyo]

@AntonNiklasson I checked and confirmed that 6.1.9 does what is written this PR.

It's possible that I'm missing something though, so I recommend opening a new issue with concrete examples. I think I can take a look then, Unfortunately your 🤷‍♂️ doesn't carry enough information for now.

[AntonNiklasson]

I'm sorry for the rude tone in my previous comment @uhyo. That didn't come out the way I wanted it to. I really appreciate all the hard work you've put into this!

I've been trying to reproduce it, I'll open a new issue if I find something. What I'm seeing right now is just that the props I explicitly set in .attrs() isn't affecting the type in the final component.

[uhyo]

No problem! Anyways I see that several new issues are already out there regarding the 6.1.9 release. I'm so sorry for this additional maintenance burden. I'm going to check all of them.

[AntonNiklasson]

@quantizor I saw you reverted the changes here. Is there another initiative to solve the typing for .attrs? It would be so nice to get it fixed, we’re stuck on v5 still.

[quantizor]

Will revisit later as a test release. I'm not keen to keep putting out problematic typing mainline releases...

[AntonNiklasson]

That makes sense! Perhaps it would be worth it to invest a bit into a types testing setup? I noticed there’s nothing in place when I played with #4306.

[quantizor]

There are a few type test files in the repo

[quantizor]

The issue is more about scale. This repo might be fine but a large one with hundreds or thousands of files will have entirely different compile performance...