fix(forms): FormBuilder.group return right type with shorthand arguments

[JeanMeche]

Extract AbstractControlOptions from type when used in shorthand argumentson FormBuilder.groups

Fixes #48073

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Code style update (formatting, local variables)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
• Build related changes
• CI related changes
• Documentation content changes
• angular.io application / infrastructure changes
• Other... Please describe:

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

[dylhunn]

@JeanMeche Thanks for your PR! However, this is actually not a complete solution. Consider the case of the other AbstractControlOptions fields:

const form = b.group({
  shorthand2: [5, {updateOn: 'blur'}],
});

expect(((form.get('shorthand2')!.value ?? 0) + 0)).toEqual(5);

[JeanMeche]

@dylhunn Correct me if i'm wrong, but [5, {updateOn: 'blur'}] works as long as it's typed correctly : {updateOn: 'blur'} as const instead of blur being just a string !

Or would you prefer having FormControl<Exclude<U, ValidatorConfig | (AbstractControlOptions | {updateOn: string})> | N> (which would make less sense to me) ?

[dylhunn]

@JeanMeche Ah, I see, it doesn't work because updateOn is inferred with a string key rather than a union of literals.

I think we don't want users tripping over the same mistake I made. Perhaps we could define an interface local in form_builder.ts:

interface PermissiveAbstractControlOptions extends Omit<AbstractControlOptions, 'updateOn'> {
  updateOn?: string;
}

where updateOn is just a string, and that way people aren't surprised by the type when trying to use updateOn with FormBuilder.group().

What do you think?

[JeanMeche]

@dylhunn Sounds reasonable to me !

I updated the PR !

[dylhunn]

This PR was merged into the repository by commit d321880.

[dylhunn]

@JeanMeche Thanks for the PR! This will be out in 15.0.1 next week.

[dylhunn]

@JeanMeche This is now released.

[angular-automatic-lock-bot]

This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity.
Please file a new issue if you are encountering a similar or related problem.

Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy.

_{This action has been performed automatically by a bot.}