@Qqwy - I’ve been thinking about TypeCheck in regards to remote types and wondering about your thoughts. I use TypeCheck for the following:
- As a runtime checker for builtin elixir types. They are not all there, but most are.
- As a way to write tighter custom requirements than can be written via guards or regular specs.
- As a way to automatically generate traditional specs for compile-time.
I know it provides generators and manual compile time checking, but I just haven’t used them yet.
The one sticking point for me has probably been interoperability with libraries/modules that do not use TypeCheck. Referencing a remote type, of course, results in a compile-time error. This means that not only can the remote type not be type checked, but it can’t generate a traditional typespec. I can write a traditional typespec, but now I have a mix of @spec and @spec! in my codebase. I’d rather just write @spec! everywhere.
You mention thinking about some sort override configuration for remote types. It does make me wonder though if TypeCheck should/can just double down on runtime checking and ignore remote types altogether. Basically, if TypeCheck encounters something like Ecto.UUID.t() and doesn’t have a known way to handle it it is ignored, BUT is still included in the generated traditional typespecs. It handles the things it can and doesn’t harm the things it can’t.
Perhaps it is just not a concern of TypeCheck to deal with this and that is okay. TypeCheck would still be providing value in that case by generating the traditional spec for tools dedicated to compiled spec checking like Dialyzer and Selectrix.
The obvious caveat here is that people may assume TypeCheck is checking things that it is not and silently ignoring them. First, I just don’t know that this is that big of a deal assuming the documentation prominently mentions that remote types are not checked. Second, it is always possible for one to write custom TypeCheck-compatible types or even create TypeCheck support packages for common libraries. Lastly, I’m just thinking the value gained by ignoring checks (but generating traditional specs) outweighs the current situation where you can’t reference them at all.
I don’t know if this is doable or something you would want to consider, but throwing it out here in case it never seemed like an option.
