The process of writing a type signature for a HoC can be daunting at first. In this post, I’ll build an HoC and detail the process of writing a type signature for it.

The HoC we’ll develop will be simple; it’ll take a promise, and handle the state-management, providing the inner component with the value, and whether it is loading or not. The usage will look like:

const UserProfile = ( { loading , user } ) => loading ? ( < div > loading ... </ div > ) : ( < div > { user . name } : { user . age } </ div > ) ; withPromise ( ( ) => fetchUser ( ) ) ( UserProfile )

Often times when writing a type signature for a function, it's useful to say out loud what the function is designed to do at a high level. In this instance, withPromise is a function that takes a function which returns a promise, and it itself returns another function which takes a component and returns another component (re-read that sentence a few times if you need to).

Higher order component functions are often curried, meaning the arguments are applied in separate argument lists. This is a fancy term, but mostly just means that we invoke them like:

withPromise ( ( ) => fetchUser ( ) ) ( UserProfile )

as opposed to:

withPromise ( ( ) => fetchUser ( ) , UserProfile )

Let’s split up the usage so we can tackle each step separately.

const withPromiseHoc = withPromise ( ( ) => fetchUser ( ) )

withPromise is just a function that returns an hoc (which we’ll worry about typing later). It takes a function which returns a promise. This gives us something to start with:

function withPromise ( f : ( ) => Promise < any > ) : ? ? ?

withPromise returns a function that takes a component and returns another component, The type of that function is: (c: ComponentType<any>) => ComponentType<any> . ComponentType<A> is a React-specific type that describes any component (sfc or class), where A is the type of the props it expects We can simply replace the ??? with this type:

function withPromise ( f : ( ) => Promise < any > ) : ( c : ComponentType < any > ) => ComponentType < any > { ... }

Now we’re getting somewhere!

You’ve probably noticed that we’re using the any type frequently. You’ve probably heard that this isn’t desirable, and I’ll show you why.

Let’s go back to our original example, where we have a component that renders a user:

const UserProfile = ( { loading , user } ) => loading ? ( < div > loading ... </ div > ) : ( < div > { user . name } : { user . age } </ div > ) ;

The user parameter has name and age properties. Let’s suppose we’re using it like:

withPromise ( ( ) => fetchUser ( ) ) ( UserProfile )

Where fetchUser returns a Promise of a user, which has the name and age attributes.

Now let’s suppose a colleague has come along and refactored fetchUser to not only fetch a user, but also their preferences. Instead of returning a user, it now returns an object with shape:

{ user : { name : 'paul' age : 29 } , preferences : { lang : 'en-US' } }

Since we’re using any , Typescript can’t make any assumptions about the type of object coming from fetchUser() . Even though our UserProfile expects users, typescript won’t complain, and our colleague will go on thinking that they haven’t broken anything with their change.

To guard ourselves against this pitfall, we can use a type parameter to align the return type of the promise with the prop types of the inner component. You can name these however you want, but a common pattern is to use a single uppercase character:

type WithPromiseContext < A > = { loading : boolean , value : A } ; function withPromise < A > ( f : ( ) => Promise < A > ) : ( c : ComponentType < WithPromiseContext < A >> ) => ComponentType < any > { ... }

Notice how the A is used in both the type of the promise and the wrapped component. The WithPromiseContext<A> is just a type that defines the props that the inner component will receive.

You may have noticed that our HoC still returns a type of ComponentType<any> . We haven’t defined what props the wrapped component takes. This can get tricky, since the props of the wrapped component won’t necessarily be the same as the inner component. In fact, in our usage, the wrapped component doesn’t have any props! This makes sense if we consider the usage:

const UserProfile = ( { loading , user } ) => loading ? ( < div > loading ... </ div > ) : ( < div > { user . name } : { user . age } </ div > ) ; const WrappedProfile = withPromise ( ( ) => fetchUser ( ) ) ( UserProfile ) ... < WrappedProfile />

WrappedProfile doesn’t take any props, so its type is ComponentType<{}> . This won’t be the case for every usage, so let’s tweak our example a bit.

Let’s add a prop to UserProfile which isn’t supplied by withPromise . This prop will be a boolean that switches on a “dark” css theme:

type UserProfileProps = { loading : boolean , user : { name : string , age : number } , dark : boolean } const UserProfile : ComponentType < UserProfileProps > = ( { loading , user , dark } ) => loading ? ( < div > loading ... </ div > ) : ( < div className = { dark ? 'dark' : 'light' } > { user . name } : { user . age } </ div > ) ;

Most HoCs pass on props they receive, so let’s assume withPromise does. In this case, we’ll want the wrapped component to indicate it needs to be supplied a dark prop, but not the loading and user props, since they’ll be supplied by withPromise . The usage will look like:

const WrappedComponent = withPromise ( ( ) => fetchUser ( ) ) ( UserProfile ) ... < WrappedComponent dark = { true } />

WrappedComponent ’s type is therefore ComponentType<{dark: boolean}> . The tricky thing to remember is that withPromise can use a component with any number of other props! What we need is a way to say that the props of the wrapped component should contain all the props of the inner component, minus the ‘loading’ and ‘user’ props.

Thanks to the work that has gone on in this GitHub issue, we can realize a type which does this generically!

type Omit < T , K extends keyof T > = Pick < T , Exclude < keyof T , K >>

This type takes any two types (such that the second extends the first) and returns another type that includes everything in the first, that isn’t in the second.

We just need to add another type parameter which will indicate the props of the inner component:

function withPromise < A , B > ( f : ( ) => Promise < A > ) : ( c : ComponentType < WithPromiseContext < B >> ) => ComponentType < any > { ... }

However, B still needs the loading and dark props from WithPromiseContext<A> , so we add that constraint to B :

function withPromise < A , B extends WithPromiseContext < A >> ( f : ( ) => Promise < A > ) : ( c : ComponentType < WithPromiseContext < B >> ) => ComponentType < any > { ... }

Ok, so now that we have a type B which has everything in WithPromiseContext<A> , and potentially more, we need to specify that the returned wrapped component’s props should have everything in B which is not in WithPromiseContext<A> . This is where Omit becomes handy. This type we’re looking for can be expressed as: Omit<B, keyof WithPromiseContext<A>> . This is the type of the props expected for the returned wrapped component, so let’s add it to the signature:

function withPromise < A , B extends WithPromiseContext < A >> ( f : ( ) => Promise < A > ) : ( c : ComponentType < WithPromiseContext < B >> ) => ComponentType < Omit < B , keyof WithPromiseContext < A >>> { ... }

Now when we use withPromise with our updated component, the type of the returned component will include the props that aren’t supplied via withPromise :

const WrappedUserProfile = withPromise < User , UserProfileProps > ( getUser ) ( UserProfile ) ... < WrappedUserProfile /> < WrappedUserProfile dark = " true " /> < WrappedUserProfile dark = { true } />

You may have noticed that when you use withPromise to wrap a component that has additional props, you must specify the type parameters:

withPromise < User , UserProfileProps > ( getUser ) ( UserProfile )

If you don’t specify them ahead of time, you’ll get an error:

withPromise ( getUser ) ( UserProfile )

This has to do with the fact that withPromise is curried. Typescript first examines the expression:

withPromise ( getUser )

to determine its type. Since we didn’t include any type parameters, Typescript has to make a guess at what the types are. There’s simply no way for Typescript to know the prop types of the inner component, since we haven’t supplied it yet. The only thing that Typescript knows for sure is that B will at least have all the props in WithPromiseContext<A> , so it simply uses the type WithPromiseContext<A> . It’s easier to see if the curried invocation is split up:

const withUserHoc = withPromise ( getUser ) withUserHoc ( UserProfile )

We’d like for Typescript to infer the props of the wrapped component. To fix this, we’ll need to delay the resolution of the second type parameter until the last argument list is provided.

To aid with clarity, we’ll come up with a type definition, specifically for an HoC which can remove props from decorated components. Let’s call it InferableHOC :

interface InferableHOC < ProvidedProps > { < B extends ProvidedProps > ( c : React . ComponentType < B > ) : React . ComponentType < Omit < B , keyof ProvidedProps >> }

In Typescript, if we want to declare the type of a function that has a type parameter, we must use an interface with a single method.

The InferableHOC takes a component with props A , and returns a component with props that are in A that are not in ProvidedProps . ProvidedProps represents the props that are provided via our HoC.

Since B now solely exists in the InferableHOC type, we remove it from the signature of withPromise :

function withPromise < A > ( f : ( ) => Promise < A > ) : InferableHOC < WithPromiseContext < A >> { ... }

Now we can have typescript automatically infer the types for us, without having to specify the props manually:

const WrappedUserProfile = withPromise ( getUser ) ( UserProfile ) ... < WrappedUserProfile / > < WrappedUserProfile dark = "true" / > < WrappedUserProfile dark = { true } / >

Of course, you could just ignore all this headache and write render props, which are far easier to write type signatures for :D

Special thanks to the smart people writing the recompose type definitions!