Exhaustive pattern matching in Typescript - Cheat Sheet & Quick Revision

Recall & Review

beginner

What is exhaustive pattern matching in TypeScript?

Exhaustive pattern matching means checking all possible cases of a value so that no case is missed. It helps catch errors when new cases are added.

intermediate

How can you enforce exhaustive checks in TypeScript's switch statements?

You can add a default case that throws an error or uses the never type to make sure all cases are handled.

intermediate

What is the never type used for in exhaustive pattern matching?

The never type represents values that should never happen. Using it in a default case helps TypeScript warn if some cases are missing.

beginner

Why is exhaustive pattern matching helpful in real-life programming?

It prevents bugs by making sure you handle every possible case, especially when your data types change or grow over time.

intermediate

Show a simple example of exhaustive pattern matching with a switch on a union type in TypeScript.

```typescript
 type Shape = { kind: 'circle'; radius: number } | { kind: 'square'; size: number };
 function area(shape: Shape) {
   switch (shape.kind) {
     case 'circle':
       return Math.PI * shape.radius ** 2;
     case 'square':
       return shape.size ** 2;
     default:
       const _exhaustiveCheck: never = shape;
       return _exhaustiveCheck;
   }
 }
```

What does the never type represent in TypeScript?

A A number value

B A string value

C A value that never occurs

D Any possible value

The never type means a value that should never happen, useful for exhaustive checks.

Why add a default case with a never type in a switch?

A To catch missing cases and get TypeScript errors

B To ignore all cases

C To return a default value

D To make the code shorter

Adding a default with never helps TypeScript warn if some cases are not handled.

What happens if you forget a case in exhaustive pattern matching?

A The program always crashes

B The missing case is handled automatically

C Nothing happens, code runs fine

D TypeScript can warn you if set up correctly

If you use exhaustive checks, TypeScript warns you about missing cases to avoid bugs.

Which TypeScript feature helps you create union types for pattern matching?

A Union types using |

B Classes

C Interfaces only

D Enums only

Union types with | let you combine types for pattern matching.

What is the main benefit of exhaustive pattern matching?

A Avoid using switch statements

B Catch all possible cases and avoid bugs

C Reduce code size

D Make code run faster

Exhaustive matching ensures all cases are handled, preventing bugs.

Explain how to implement exhaustive pattern matching in TypeScript using a switch statement.

Think about how to make TypeScript check all cases.

Why is exhaustive pattern matching important when your data types change over time?

Consider what happens if you add a new case but forget to handle it.

Practice

1.

What is the main purpose of exhaustive pattern matching in TypeScript?

easy

A. To allow dynamic typing in TypeScript

B. To ensure all possible cases of a union type are handled

C. To improve runtime performance by skipping cases

D. To automatically generate switch cases

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand union types and pattern matching

   Exhaustive pattern matching ensures every variant of a union type is explicitly handled in code.

2. Step 2: Identify the purpose of exhaustive checks

   This prevents missing cases that could cause bugs or unexpected behavior.

3. Final Answer:

   To ensure all possible cases of a union type are handled -> Option B

4. Quick Check:

   Exhaustive pattern matching = handle all cases [OK]

Hint: Exhaustive means covering every case without missing any [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Thinking it improves runtime speed
• Confusing with dynamic typing
• Assuming it auto-generates code

2.

Which of the following switch statements correctly uses exhaustive pattern matching for this union type?

type Shape = 'circle' | 'square' | 'triangle';

easy

A. switch(shape) { case 'circle': break; case 'square': break; case 'triangle': break; }

B. switch(shape) { case 'circle': break; case 'square': break; default: break; }

C. switch(shape) { case 'circle': break; case 'square': break; case 'triangle': break; default: const _exhaustiveCheck: never = shape; }

D. switch(shape) { case 'circle': break; case 'square': break; case 'triangle': break; default: console.log('unknown'); }

Solution

1. Step 1: Check all cases are handled

   Cases for 'circle', 'square', and 'triangle' are present in options B, C, and D.

2. Step 2: Verify exhaustive check with never type

   Only switch(shape) { case 'circle': break; case 'square': break; case 'triangle': break; default: const _exhaustiveCheck: never = shape; } uses default with const _exhaustiveCheck: never = shape; to enforce exhaustiveness.

3. Final Answer:

   switch with all cases and default assigning to never -> Option C

4. Quick Check:

   Exhaustive switch = all cases + never default [OK]

Hint: Look for default assigning to never for exhaustiveness [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Omitting the default case with never assignment
• Using default without never type
• Missing one of the union cases

3.

What will be the output of this TypeScript code?

type Status = 'success' | 'error';
function handleStatus(status: Status) {
  switch (status) {
    case 'success':
      return 'Yay!';
    case 'error':
      return 'Oops!';
    default:
      const _exhaustiveCheck: never = status;
      return _exhaustiveCheck;
  }
}
console.log(handleStatus('success'));

medium

A. Compilation error

B. "Oops!"

C. Runtime error

D. "Yay!"

Solution

1. Step 1: Analyze the switch cases for 'success'

   The input is 'success', so the first case matches and returns 'Yay!'.

2. Step 2: Check the default case usage

   The default case is unreachable here but ensures exhaustiveness by assigning to never.

3. Final Answer:

   "Yay!" -> Option D

4. Quick Check:

   Input 'success' returns 'Yay!' [OK]

Hint: Match input case to return value directly [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Thinking default case runs for valid inputs
• Expecting runtime or compile errors
• Confusing return values for cases

4.

Identify the error in this exhaustive pattern matching code:

type Direction = 'up' | 'down' | 'left' | 'right';
function move(dir: Direction) {
  switch (dir) {
    case 'up':
      return 'Moving up';
    case 'down':
      return 'Moving down';
    case 'left':
      return 'Moving left';
    default:
      const _exhaustiveCheck: never = dir;
      return _exhaustiveCheck;
  }
}

medium

A. Missing case for 'right' in the switch statement

B. Default case should not assign to never

C. Function should return void instead of string

D. Switch statement syntax is incorrect

Solution

1. Step 1: Check all union cases in switch

   Cases for 'up', 'down', and 'left' exist, but 'right' is missing.

2. Step 2: Understand the role of default with never

   The default assigns to never to catch unhandled cases, so missing 'right' causes a compile error.

3. Final Answer:

   Missing case for 'right' in the switch statement -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   All union cases must be handled explicitly [OK]

Hint: Check if all union members have cases before default [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Assuming default covers missing cases silently
• Misusing never assignment in default
• Ignoring missing union members

5.

Given this nested union type, which switch structure correctly uses exhaustive pattern matching to handle all cases?

type Animal = { type: 'dog'; breed: 'bulldog' | 'beagle' } | { type: 'cat'; color: 'black' | 'white' };

hard

A. switch(animal.type) {
case 'dog':
switch(animal.breed) {
case 'bulldog': break;
case 'beagle': break;
default: const _exhaustiveCheck: never = animal.breed;
}
break;
case 'cat':
switch(animal.color) {
case 'black': break;
case 'white': break;
default: const _exhaustiveCheck: never = animal.color;
}
break;
default: const _exhaustiveCheck: never = animal.type;
}

B. switch(animal.type) {
case 'dog':
if(animal.breed === 'bulldog' || animal.breed === 'beagle') break;
break;
case 'cat':
if(animal.color === 'black' || animal.color === 'white') break;
break;
default: const _exhaustiveCheck: never = animal.type;
}

C. switch(animal.type) {
case 'dog':
case 'cat':
break;
default: const _exhaustiveCheck: never = animal.type;
}

D. switch(animal.type) {
case 'dog':
switch(animal.breed) {
case 'bulldog': break;
default: const _exhaustiveCheck: never = animal.breed;
}
break;
case 'cat':
switch(animal.color) {
case 'black': break;
case 'white': break;
}
break;
default: const _exhaustiveCheck: never = animal.type;
}

Solution

1. Step 1: Check outer switch covers all 'type' cases

   Cases for 'dog' and 'cat' are present with default assigning to never.

2. Step 2: Check inner switches cover all nested union cases

   For 'dog', both 'bulldog' and 'beagle' are handled with default never; for 'cat', both 'black' and 'white' are handled similarly.

3. Step 3: Verify no missing cases in nested switches

   All nested union members are covered with exhaustive checks.

4. Final Answer:

   Nested switches with all cases and never defaults for both levels -> Option A

5. Quick Check:

   Nested exhaustive switches = all cases + never defaults [OK]

Hint: Use nested switches with never defaults for each union level [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Skipping some nested union cases
• Using if conditions without exhaustive checks
• Missing never assignment in inner switches