Roy Lopez
PersistDev.blog
#typescript

Constraining Function Type Arguments with Generics: Building a Safe Execution Wrapper

Constraining Function Type Arguments with Generics: Building a Safe Execution Wrapper
0 views
4 min read
#typescript
Table of Content

In TypeScript, writing a higher-order function that wraps another function to handle errors gracefully can be greatly enhanced by properly constraining its type arguments. In this article, we'll explore two different approaches for building a safe execution wrapper.

Both methods ensure that the wrapper preserves the original function's argument types and return type while adding error handling.

The Problem: Wrapping a Function Safely

Imagine you have a function that might throw an error, and you want to wrap it so that instead of crashing your application, it returns an object indicating success or failure.

For example, the wrapper should return:

  • { status: "ok", value: result } on success
  • { status: "error", error: error } on failure

Below are two strategies to achieve this using TypeScript generics.

Approach 1: Using Separate Generic Parameters

The first solution uses two generic parameters—one for the function’s parameters and another for its return type.

const wrapWithSafety = <TArgs extends any[], TResult>(
  fn: (...args: TArgs) => TResult,
) => {
  return (
    ...args: TArgs
  ): { status: "ok"; value: TResult } | { status: "error"; error: Error } => {
    try {
      const result = fn(...args);
      return { status: "ok", value: result };
    } catch (error) {
      return { status: "error", error: error as Error };
    }
  };
};

🔍 Explanation

TArgs extends any[] → Captures the function’s parameters as an array, allowing for any number of arguments .TResult → Represents the return type of the function. The parameter fn is of type (...args: TArgs) => TResult, meaning it takes parameters of type TArgs and returns TResult.The wrapper function preserves this type, ensuring type safety. ✅ On success : { status: "ok", value: TResult }❌ On failure : { status: "error", error: Error }This approach directly maps the original function’s parameters and return type into the wrapper’s type signature, making it explicit and easy to follow.

Approach 2: Constraining the Entire Function Type

The second solution takes a different approach by capturing the entire function type with a single generic parameter . It then extracts the parameters and return type using TypeScript’s built-in utility types .

const wrapWithSafetyAlt = <TFunc extends (...args: any[]) => any>(
  fn: TFunc,
) => {
  return (
    ...args: Parameters<TFunc>
  ):
    | { status: "ok"; value: ReturnType<TFunc> }
    | { status: "error"; error: Error } => {
    try {
      const result = fn(...args);
      return { status: "ok", value: result };
    } catch (error) {
      return { status: "error", error: error as Error };
    }
  };
};

🔍 Explanation

TFunc extends (...args: any[]) => any → Constrains TFunc to be any function . Parameters<TFunc> → Extracts the parameter types of TFunc as a tuple.ReturnType<TFunc> → Extracts the return type of TFunc. The parameter fn is typed as a whole function (TFunc).The returned function:

  • ✅ Accepts arguments of type Parameters<TFunc>

  • ✅ Returns { status: "ok"; value: ReturnType<TFunc> } | { status: "error"; error: Error }This approach reduces cognitive load by keeping the type definitions more compact. It’s especially useful when working with complex function types .

Comparing the Two Approaches

Approach 1: Using Separate Generics ✅ Pros:

  • Explicitly separates parameter types (TArgs) and return type (TResult).

  • Useful when you need fine-grained control over parameters and return values. ❌ Cons:

  • Slightly more verbose.

  • Requires defining multiple generic parameters.

Approach 2: Using a Single Generic ✅ Pros:

  • More concise by leveraging TypeScript's built-in utility types.

  • Reduces boilerplate by directly extracting function parameters and return type. ❌ Cons:

  • Less explicit about the function's parameter and return types.

  • Requires familiarity with TypeScript’s Parameters<T> and ReturnType<T> utilities.

Choosing the Right Strategy

Both approaches are valid and provide strong type safety, so the choice depends on your preference and project needs :

  • Use Approach 1 if you prefer explicit typing and want more control over generics.

  • Use Approach 2 if you want cleaner, more concise code that leverages TypeScript utility types . Regardless of which approach you choose, both ensure that your wrapper function accurately reflects the original function’s type signature , preventing type mismatches when used.

Conclusion

By constraining function type arguments with generics , you can build flexible and safe higher-order functions in TypeScript.Whether you: ✅ Define separate generics for parameters and return types ✅ Leverage utility types to capture the entire function… both methods provide robust type safety that helps catch errors early in development.Mastering generics in TypeScript empowers you to write cleaner, safer, and more scalable code .Happy coding! 🚀

Loading...