Update: omit

[Harris-Miller]

typing omit same as pick

Additional fix for optional properties for pick

[Harris-Miller]

@lautarodragan it was easier to fix your issue #81 (comment) by making my own MR

The problem as far as I can tell is Typescript itself. Record<ElementOf<Names>, any> won't take an object if one of the keys is optional, but making it Partial<Record<ElementOf<Names>, any>> will allow objects that are missing keys from the array

While not the ideal solution, what I was able to do is make it return never for the latter case by comparing ElementOf<Names> to keyof U in the return type

[lautarodragan]

Nice! I've tested this PR my code and it works as expected.

Maybe unrelated, but it didn't feel nice to see my PR being closed, replaced by another, after the effort and time I spent on it. I don't assume any bad intentions, but definitely doesn't feel welcoming.

Regardless, I appreciate that omit will now be type-safe, and that you found a way to implement so; and, more broadly, your work bringing type safety to Ramda.

[Harris-Miller]

@lautarodragan

Maybe unrelated, but it didn't feel nice to see my PR being closed, replaced by another, after the effort and time I spent on it. I don't assume any bad intentions, but definitely doesn't feel welcoming.

Thank you for the constructive criticism, I'll work on my communication so for the future instead of close+replace we'll keep the initial MR for these cases

[Harris-Miller]

@lautarodragan

Nice! I've tested this PR my code and it works as expected.

I pushed some additional changes, can you retest and let me know if everything is still working as expected, please and thank you

[lautarodragan]

Thank you for the constructive criticism, I'll work on my communication so for the future instead of close+replace we'll keep the initial MR for these cases

Thanks ❤️

I pushed some additional changes, can you retest and let me know if everything is still working as expected, please and thank you

I just did a couple of manual tests in my code base and it works perfectly! It correctly reports errors when I try to access fields I've omitted, both with the curried and non-curried versions; and the non-omitted fields are still accessibly and correctly typed.

When including in the omit list a field that does not exist in the object type it infers the type as never and stops there, too.

I think this even uncovered an existing bug in the code base.

🚀

[Harris-Miller]

@lautarodragan accepting that as a Virtual "Approve" and merging