wicked falcon
Found a stack overflow post with what I want to achieve.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/67884720/typescript-omit-nested-property
But I'm not a fan of how this answer is supposed to be used.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/67888086
I'd prefer if it worked like the built in Omit utility type, so lets say
type MyType = {
foo: {
bar: string;
fizz: number;
buzz: boolean;
}
}
type FooWithBar = Omit<MyType, 'foo.fizz' | 'foo.buzz'>
// ^? { foo: { bar: string; } }
steady ginkgo
this is imo the best way to achieve this
you could also manipulate the type, decomposite ,use a bunch of Omit and Partial, then recompose it
but it isn't as scalable as the accepted answer
wicked falcon
yes, but is there a way to get this type of interface with the utility type, so that I don't have to parse and array of keys as the second generic
talking about this
type FooWithBar = Omit<MyType, ['foo.fizz', 'foo.buzz']>;
vs this
type FooWithBar = Omit<MyType, 'foo.fizz' | 'foo.buzz'>;
dim gorge
I understand the idea but it can't be implemented as such.
let a = { "foo.bar": 12 }``` and
```ts
let b = { foo: { bar: 12 } }``` are two different objects.