You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Most likely in last statement data field was expected to be an instance of Y instead of X, although given that {y: 2} can be read both as X and Y it was interpreted as a first type in the union X.
It maybe better to disallow passing untyped values all together in order to avoid this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
At the moment if you define types with a following signatures:
Then type union interprets
data
value not always as one would expected:Most likely in last statement
data
field was expected to be an instance ofY
instead ofX
, although given that{y: 2}
can be read both asX
andY
it was interpreted as a first type in the unionX
.It maybe better to disallow passing untyped values all together in order to avoid this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: