A collection of readonly TypeScript types inspired by TypeScript's built-in readonly types (ReadonlyArray
, ReadonlyMap
, etc) and by is-immutable-type.
The types here are all fully Immutable
following is-immutable-type#definitions.
This package assumes you have TypeScript's strict mode and noUncheckedIndexedAccess option turned on. eslint-plugin-total-functions provides an ESLint rule to ensure they're both on.
# yarn
yarn add readonly-types
# npm
npm install readonly-types
// Here's an example using ReadonlyURL.
import { ReadonlyURL } from "readonly-types";
// This is fine.
const hasFooSearchParam = (url: ReadonlyURL) => url.searchParams.has("foo");
// But this won't compile.
const setFooSearchParam = (url: ReadonlyURL) => url.searchParams.set("foo", "bar");
The second column contains the types provided by this library (which are all Immutable
). The columns to the right of it show the types being replaced and what level of immutability they achieve by default.
The first column ("Even Better 🚀") contains types that are more than just immutable versions of the types in the later columns. These "even better" options require more effort to adopt than those in the second column (or may not even be generally available yet), but they're worth considering if you want something that is more closely aligned with a pure typeful functional programming approach.
Even Better 🚀 | Immutable | ReadonlyDeep | ReadonlyShallow | Mutable |
---|---|---|---|---|
A dedicated Map type (good options below), see Objects vs. Maps for why |
ReadonlyRecord |
Record |
||
ReadonlyURL |
URL |
|||
ReadonlyURLSearchParams |
URLSearchParams |
|||
Temporal (stage 3 proposal, aims to solve various problems in Date , including its mutability) |
ReadonlyDate |
Date |
||
Chunk, PrincipledArray (does not return mutable arrays from methods like map ), purpose-built immutable data structures |
ImmutableArray |
ReadonlyArray |
Array |
|
purpose-built immutable data structures | ImmutableSet |
ReadonlySet |
Set |
|
purpose-built immutable data structures | ImmutableMap |
ReadonlyMap |
Map |
|
ReadonlyWeakSet |
WeakSet |
|||
ReadonlyWeakMap |
WeakMap |
|||
Effect's Either , fp-ts's Either |
ReadonlyError (and friends) |
Error and friends |
||
ReadonlyRegExp |
RegExp |
|||
Effect, fp-ts's TaskEither |
ReadonlyPromise |
Promise |
||
DeepImmutable |
DeepReadonly from ts-essentials, which when used will produce a mix of Mutable and ReadonlyDeep types |
- PRs welcome!
You can ban the mutable counterparts to these readonly types using eslint-plugin-functional's prefer-immutable-types rule.
TypeScript's built-in ReadonlyArray
isn't truly immutable. Observe:
const foo: ReadonlyArray<string> = [""] as const;
// This compiles
foo.every = () => false;
// So does this
foo.at = () => undefined;
is-immutable-type provides the answer in Making ReadonlyDeep types Immutable. We've reused that here to provide an ImmutableArray
type.
import { ImmutableArray } from "readonly-types";
const foo: ImmutableArray<string> = [""] as const;
// These no longer compile
foo.every = () => false; // Cannot assign to 'every' because it is a read-only property. ts(2540)
foo.at = () => undefined; // Cannot assign to 'at' because it is a read-only property. ts(2540)
ReadonlyArray
achieves the ReadonlyDeep
level of immutability, ImmutableArray
achieves the Immutable
level.
It turns out that even ImmutableArray
has cracks in its immutable armour. Here's a subtle one:
// This doesn't compile...
foo.at = () => undefined;
foo.map((value, index, array) => {
// ... but this does!
array.at = () => undefined;
return value;
});
The array
passed as the third argument to the map
callback is typed as ReadonlyArray
. Our ImmutableArray
trick doesn't change that method's callback's argument's types. The same applies to filter
, flatMap
, find
and so on.
To fix that issue we provide a type called PrincipledArray
:
const foo: PrincipledArray<string> = [""] as const;
// This doesn't compile...
foo.at = () => undefined;
foo.map((value, index, array) => {
// ... and neither does this!
array.at = () => undefined;
return value;
});
PrincipledArray
makes a few other (type-incompatible) improvements while its at it, including:
- Removes
forEach
entirely (usemap
or another non-side-effecting alternative instead). - Requires a true boolean return type from predicates passed to
filter
and other methods (by default, TypeScript allows these predicates to returnunknown
). - Removes the partial versions of
reduce
andreduceRight
that throw at runtime if the array is empty (i.e. those that don't require the caller to specify an initial value). See also eslint-functional/eslint-plugin-functional#527
import { principledArray } from "readonly-types";
// Given a principled array.
const foo = principledArray<string>([]);
// This does not compile.
// Property 'forEach' does not exist on type 'PrincipledArray<string>'. ts(2339)
foo.forEach(() => {});
// This would normally throw at runtime, but with PrincipledArray it does not compile
// Expected 2 arguments, but got 1. ts(2554)
// An argument for 'initialValue' was not provided.
const result = foo.reduce((p) => p);
The downside to PrincipledArray
is that -- precisely because it changes the type in these ways -- you cannot assign it to a value of type ReadonlyArray
. ImmutableArray
doesn't have this downside. Choose whichever is most appropriate for you.
An array type that is verifiably non-empty (i.e. known to have at least one entry at compile time) is a useful type to have.
You can make such a type based on ReadonlyArray
like this:
type ReadonlyNonEmptyArray<T> = readonly [T, ...(readonly T[])];
Like ReadonlyArray
that type is only ReadonlyDeep
, not truly Immutable
.
We provide a truly immutable version in the form of ImmutableNonEmptyArray
.
With PrincipledArray
having removed the versions of reduce
and reduceRight
that do not require an initialValue
, there becomes a need for another type that is verifiably non-empty (at compile time) which puts them back again.
We provide that type in the form of PrincipledNonEmptyArray
, which you can think of as a mix between ImmutableNonEmptyArray
and PrincipledArray
:
// Given a principled non-empty array.
const foo = principledNonEmptyArray<string>(["a"]);
// This compiles, whereas it wouldn't have compiled for a regular principled array.
const result = foo.reduce((p) => p);
⬇️ can be assigned to ➡️ | Array |
ReadonlyArray |
ImmutableArray |
PrincipledArray |
PrincipledNonEmptyArray |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Array |
✅ | ✅ |
✅ |
❌ | ❌ |
ReadonlyArray |
❌ | ✅ | ✅ |
❌ | ❌ |
ImmutableArray |
❌ | ✅ |
✅ | ❌ | ❌ |
PrincipledArray |
❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ |
PrincipledNonEmptyArray |
❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |
Assignments marked
Types like ImmutableArray
and PrincipledArray
(and even the humble built-in ReadonlyArray
) can help a lot with correctness but the underlying runtime type remains a mutable Array
. The same goes for our immutable Set
and Map
types. In essence the data structures are the same, we're just constraining ourselves to an immutable subset of their mutable APIs.
One consequence of this is that if someone could get their hands on a mutable handle to one of our values, they could edit it as if it were mutable (e.g. via an as
type assertion or via an Array.isArray
check). This forces us to put a little asterisk next to any immutability guarantees we make. You might reach for Object.freeze in response to that risk, but that comes with its own issues (performance, compatibility, doesn't show up in the type system, ...).
Another consequence of this is that updating and copying values of these types is needlessly expensive (in terms of compute and memory). A copy of the entire structure must be taken to preserve correctness, even if all we want to do for example is update a single element.
There exist purpose-built immutable data structures that give us an immutable API without the associated performance cost of copying an underlying mutable structure (look for terms like 'structural sharing' and 'copy on write'). If performance is a factor for you, these can be a better choice than the immutable types provided by this package.
To get you started, check out the following:
- https://github.com/immerjs/immer
- https://github.com/immutable-js/immutable-js
- https://github.com/rtfeldman/seamless-immutable
A surprising irony of these types is that they typically aren't truly immutable, for the same reason that ReadonlyArray
isn't truly immutable. Here's an example:
import { Map as ImmutableJsMap } from "immutable";
const foo = ImmutableJsMap([["key", "value"]]);
// This compiles
foo.delete = () => foo;
Because delete
is implemented using method syntax it is necessarily mutable (TypeScript methods defined using method syntax cannot be readonly for "reasons"). This is so common that is-immutable-type#definitions defines a level of "readonly-ness" called ReadonlyDeep
that sits below truly Immutable
but above the mutable levels ReadonlyShallow
and Mutable
.
Depending on how strictly you wish to enforce immutability, ReadonlyDeep
may or may not be acceptable to you. If it isn't, you can fix it like this:
import { Map as ImmutableJsMap } from "immutable";
type TrulyImmutableMap<K, V> = Readonly<ImmutableJsMap<K, V>>;
const foo: TrulyImmutableMap<string, string> = ImmutableJsMap([
["key", "value"],
]);
// No longer compiles
foo.delete = () => foo; // Cannot assign to 'delete' because it is a read-only property. ts(2540)
See Making ReadonlyDeep types Immutable for more on this.
- https://github.com/danielnixon/eslint-config-typed-fp
- https://github.com/jonaskello/eslint-plugin-functional
- https://github.com/danielnixon/eslint-plugin-total-functions
- https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/typescript-in-5-minutes-func.html#readonly-and-const
- To see ReadonlyDate adoption grow, upvote this: date-fns/date-fns#1944
- microsoft/TypeScript#13347