no-confusing-non-null-assertion
Disallow non-null assertion in locations that may be confusing.
Extending "plugin:@typescript-eslint/stylistic"
in an ESLint configuration enables this rule.
Some problems reported by this rule are manually fixable by editor suggestions.
Using a non-null assertion (!
) next to an assignment or equality check (=
or ==
or ===
) creates code that is confusing as it looks similar to an inequality check (!=
!==
).
a! == b; // a non-null assertion(`!`) and an equals test(`==`)
a !== b; // not equals test(`!==`)
a! === b; // a non-null assertion(`!`) and a triple equals test(`===`)
Using a non-null assertion (!
) next to an in test (in
) or an instanceof test (instanceof
) creates code that is confusing since it may look like the operator is negated, but it is actually not.
a! in b; // a non-null assertion(`!`) and an in test(`in`)
a !in b; // also a non-null assertion(`!`) and an in test(`in`)
!(a in b); // a negated in test
a! instanceof b; // a non-null assertion(`!`) and an instanceof test(`instanceof`)
a !instanceof b; // also a non-null assertion(`!`) and an instanceof test(`instanceof`)
!(a instanceof b); // a negated instanceof test
This rule flags confusing !
assertions and suggests either removing them or wrapping the asserted expression in ()
parenthesis.
- Flat Config
- Legacy Config
export default tseslint.config({
rules: {
"@typescript-eslint/no-confusing-non-null-assertion": "error"
}
});
module.exports = {
"rules": {
"@typescript-eslint/no-confusing-non-null-assertion": "error"
}
};
Try this rule in the playground ↗
Examples
- ❌ Incorrect
- ✅ Correct
interface Foo {
bar?: string;
num?: number;
}
const foo: Foo = getFoo();
const isEqualsBar = foo.bar! == 'hello';
const isEqualsNum = 1 + foo.num! == 2;
Open in Playgroundinterface Foo {
bar?: string;
num?: number;
}
const foo: Foo = getFoo();
const isEqualsBar = foo.bar == 'hello';
const isEqualsNum = (1 + foo.num!) == 2;
Open in PlaygroundOptions
This rule is not configurable.
When Not To Use It
If you don't care about this confusion, then you will not need this rule.