Repository navigation
import type should not have any effect on output code #41562
Description
import type declarations should not appear in the JS output and should not have any effect on the JS output.
As of 4.0 adding import type to a file causes export {}; to be added to the output. This worked in 3.8
This breaks components that use ES modules syntax (because the rest of project also uses it) but will not be loaded as modules. Examples include service workers, web workers, shared workers and custom elements loaded as side effects.
This is a breaking change with no workaround possible in TS. External workarounds are possible.
The general case has already been raised as #41513, this issue is specifically for the subset where the files only contain import type declarations and no plain import statements.
The documentation for import type states:
import typeonly imports declarations to be used for type annotations and declarations. It always gets fully erased, so there’s no remnant of it at runtime.
This was the case in 3.8, it is not the case with 4.0
TypeScript Version: 4.0.5
Search Terms: import type, export {}
Code
Using import type in a file so that TS can check types:
import type { InterfaceType } from './MyLibrary';
const test: InterfaceType = {};Note that this file is not a module and will not be loaded as a module.
Expected behavior:
JS output should not include any reference to the import type declaration:
const test = {};Actual behavior:
JS output includes export {}; to force the output to be a module:
const test = {};
export {};Related Issues:
- Bug in Webpack this change was introduced to fix: Empty Module Exports Dramatically Affect Bundle Output webpack/webpack#10889
- Not all TS users also use Webpack, is it a pre-requisite now?
- Design meeting where problems this change introduces were dismissed: Design Meeting Notes, 5/21/2020 #38713
- Apparently "They will have a point", though it's not clear whether anything followed from that.
- Change to always
export {};where this exact issue withimport typewas already identified: Consider emittingexport {}in all ambiguous module output #38696 (comment) - Bug raised for general case: TypeScript adds
exports {}into code #41513
Activity
MartinJohns commentedon Nov 17, 2020
Duplicate of #41513.
KeithHenry commentedon Nov 17, 2020
Martin Johns (@MartinJohns) It isn't because #41513 is the general case, i.e. don't always emit
export {};This issue is for the specific case where there are no
importstatements in the JS output. Even if you accept that #41513 is by design becauseexport {};is strictly spec compliant (and I don't) in this case that spec should not apply because the output JS is not a module.Even if you accept that all JS files with
importdirectives are modules and all modules must have anexport, a TS file with onlyimport typeis a special case - it won't haveimportin the output JS and therefore doesn't need to force anexport.Or to put it another way, with
import typeI expect that I'm telling TS to use that type when checking the file but don't change the output. I don't expectimport typeon its own to force the output to be a module.MartinJohns commentedon Nov 17, 2020
I thought #41513 explicitly mentioned "import type" as well. But my impression was still that it's intentional that any use of module-syntax (aka import/export) leads to the file being treated as a module.
This impression aligns with the comment by Andrew Branch (@andrewbranch) in the PR that added type-imports: #35200 (comment)
So if it's not a duplicate, it's at least working as intended.
KeithHenry commentedon Nov 17, 2020
Martin Johns (@MartinJohns) In that case this bug would become with the documentation.
I agree, but in 3.8's release the statement on
import typewasThis needs to be amended in the 4.0 release notes and documentation to something like:
It would also be really helpful to have some documentation, anywhere, on what we should do instead? Is the TS design intent that web workers/service workers/custom elements/etc should not be able to share type definitions with ES module code? I really don't want to have two versions of
'./MyLibrary.d.ts', one forimportand another for/// <reference path="..." />. That used to be the case and it was a PitA.Finally I disagree entirely with:
If
importandimport typebehave the same for consistency then what is the point ofimport typein the first place? In what context would I ever useimport typeif it always behaves consistently with plainimport?I'm using
import typebecause I want the design/transpile time definition specifically without changing my JS output.The assumption that all files that include
import typeare intended to be modules is wrong (as in not all users want this all the time). We can argue about whether that intent is more one way or the other, but what it does do it break all places whereimport typewas used and not intended to output a module.At the very least I think this needs to be configurable within TS. If you think the most common intent is that
import typeshould force module output then: fine, make that the default, but we can't opt out.Our only options are:
import type, orMartinJohns commentedon Nov 17, 2020
There is no remnant of
import typeat runtime.I agree that fixing the bug should be mentioned in the breaking-changes section of the release notes.
But the behavior is mentioned on the documentation regarding modules: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/modules.html
You're having a top-level import, so the file is a module.
The purpose of
import typeis described in the PR that I linked.Then you're using it for something it was not designed or intended for.
Anyway, I'm going to unsubscribe. 🤷
KeithHenry commentedon Nov 17, 2020
Apart from, you know, the
export {};that is a remnant of theimport typeat runtime and that wouldn't be there if I'd just usedany.Er, ok, let's look: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/modules.html#importing-types:
Oh, ok then.
There is no top level
importin my JS file. Why does it have to be a module?I guess, but it's something that did work, now doesn't, and that there is no workaround for other than either opt out of TS or add something that fixes TS output afterwards. I don't get how this is not a problem with TS.
Fair enough, thanks for the help.
KeithHenry commentedon Nov 18, 2020
The fix for this is to replace all instances of
import type Xwithimport(...).X:I still think the side effect of
import typeis very obtuse to anyone not directly involved in writing it, and some kind of documentation explaining thatimport typewill always force the JS output to be a module would be helpful.