0.44.0 intersection types regression

[laat]

types.ts given these types:

export interface Links {
    readonly self: HrefLink;
    readonly myLink: HrefLink & TemplatedLink;
}
export interface HrefLink {
  readonly href: string;
}
export interface TemplatedLink {
  readonly templated: true;
}

program.ts and a program that generates the schema:

import path from 'path';
import util from 'util'
import * as TJS from 'typescript-json-schema';

const program = TJS.getProgramFromFiles([path.join(__dirname, "types.ts")]);
const schema = TJS.generateSchema(program, "Links", {
  noExtraProps: true, // important
});

console.log(util.inspect(schema, { depth: Infinity }));

0.43.0 gives the expected intersection:

{
  type: 'object',
  properties: {
    self: { '$ref': '#/definitions/HrefLink' },
    myLink: {
      additionalProperties: false,
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        href: { type: 'string' },
        templated: { type: 'boolean', enum: [ true ] }
      }
    }
  },
  additionalProperties: false,
  definitions: {
    HrefLink: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: { href: { type: 'string' } },
      additionalProperties: false
    }
  },
  '$schema': 'http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#'
}

0.44.0 HrefLink properties is missing in myLink:

{
  type: 'object',
  properties: {
    self: { '$ref': '#/definitions/HrefLink' },
    myLink: {
      additionalProperties: false,
      type: 'object',
      properties: { templated: { type: 'boolean', enum: [ true ] } }
    }
  },
  additionalProperties: false,
  definitions: {
    HrefLink: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: { href: { type: 'string' } },
      additionalProperties: false
    }
  },
  '$schema': 'http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#'
}

[domoritz]

Could that be coming from #383? cc @darkowic

[darkowic]

Not sure... But we do have a similar test here https://github.com/YousefED/typescript-json-schema/blob/master/test/programs/type-intersection/main.ts and everything is passing on CI.

[laat]

I bisected the commits, and it was introduced in b69cd3c

[darkowic]

Can you improve the test scenarios and try to handle it? I did in this comment my best but if something was not covered then it is hard to be safe... Maybe I will have time at the weekend to look at it...

[laat]

It's very understandable that it happens when it's not covered by tests, this just happens from time to time. Nobody blames you :)

I can create a PR with a test-case that should pass, but I'm afraid that I'm not familiar enough with the guts of this package to fix it.

[laat]

@darkowic I have added a test that fails in #388.

I have verified that this test passed before b69cd3c.

I'm sorry that I cannot be of more help.

[domoritz]

Thank you for debugging, providing a test case, and helping to fix the issue both of you!

[dmitry-urenev]

Hey guys, do you know if there is any progress with this issue?