March 15, 2022

Master Type Narrowing In Typescript

So you have an unknown parameter in your function. Is it a string? Is it a boolean? Is it some kind of weird combination of properties and methods? How can you tell?

In this article we are going to address one of the most important topics; How do we narrow down a type to more specific ones? What options the JavaScript language has built-in and what are the features TypeScript adds to protect us from common mistakes?

If you don’t have a lot of experience with JavaScript, this article will be a gold mine for you. I tried to collect as much information as I could, to make you understand the important bits and pieces of my most favorite language, that usually drive people crazy and discourage them completely.

Enough with the intro. Let’s start with a coding challenge. Hooray! 🤗

Consider the following JavaScript function getWidth():

function getWidth(width?: string | number) {
  if (typeof width === 'number') {
    return `${width}px`;

  return width;

This basically returns values for the css width property. The logic is the following:

// number values get the suffix px:
getWidth(100)  // '100px'
// string values get no suffix:
getWidth('100%')  // '100%'
getWidth('auto')  // 'auto'

Can you guess what the type of the argument width is in every single line of the code above? Do you think this code will work as expected?

I am going to reveal the solution in the next paragraph. Spend a minute thinking about it before you continue.

Chocolate? 🍫

The Control Flow Analysis of TypeScript

To solve the mystery, let’s fire up our favorite TypeScript text editor and paste the challenge there. Try to hover over the width argument in every single line. As you do that, you will notice that TypeScript will give you a special union type with all the types.

Here’s what we have:

function getWidth(width?: string | number) {
  if (typeof width === 'number') {  // string | number | undefined
    return `${width}px`;  // number

  return width;  // string | undefined

Notice that within the if block, the type of the argument width is a number. That’s logical, since we are checking if the width parameter is a number within the if conditional. But how does TypeScript know what it will be? Has it compiled the code already?

It turns out that it does. 😏

TypeScript evaluates your code at compilation time, to detect how the type of a value changes at any given position.

Combine this with type inference and you get pretty sophisticated error detections.

Now, back to our example. If we hover over the width argument in the last return statement, we will see that the possible values are string | undefined. That’s logical, because if the width argument was a number, the execution would have stopped right inside the if block. TypeScript understands that, and removes the string type from the union. But what about the undefined? Will this be a problem?

Oops, I did it again! 😬

Of course, width can be undefined, because it’s an optional parameter. This means that you will not get the best results if you call this function with no arguments:

getWidth();  // returns 'undefinedpx'

With the help of TypeScript, we know that our function needs some refactoring:

function getWidth(width?: string | number) {
  if (typeof width === 'number') {
    return `${width}px`;

  return width || 'auto';

Now, no matter what, the function will always return a value or it will default to auto. TypeScript helped me identify the bug here.

Now, you may be wondering, do I need to hover over my types and check all these things? Why didn’t TypeScript complain about this? 😒

I could have prevented this from happening, if I had specified a type for the return value:

function getWidth(width?: string | number): string {
  if (typeof width === 'number') {
    return `${width}px`;

  return width;  // Error: Type undefined is not assignable to type string

Now I get back a very informative error:


That’s the reason we really have to encourage our team colleagues to be very descriptive with types.

One last thing; If somebody tries to pass null instead of undefined, TypeScript will throw an error:

getWidth(null) // Error: Argument of type 'null' is not assignable to parameter of type 'string | number | undefined'

It got me covered! 😋

So TypeScript is evaluating your code at compile-time and it can predict what type a value can have. Combine this with the type inference feature and you get a very sophisticated bug prevention system.

We’ve seen this behavior with the unknown keyword:

function someplay(files: unknown) { => console.log(t)) // Error: Object is of type 'unknown'

Here, TypeScript prevented us from calling the method map() that may not exist in the files argument. In fact, files may not be an array at all.

Control flow analysis is being improved with every version of the language. More and more features are being added.

Type Guards

Here’s how you can check if the files argument of the previous example is an array:

function someplay(files: unknown) {
  if (files instanceof Array) { => console.log(t))

I used a condition that checks if the files variable is an array. Within the if block, we know for sure that the type of the files variable is an array, and therefore we can call its map() method.

For a TypeScript developer, it’s important to understand how to narrow down types to more specific ones. These kinds of checks are called type guards.

A type guard is a form of a code expression, which helps TypeScript refine types down to more specific types.

Let’s review all the tools JavaScript has already built-in. Yes, all these will work at runtime.

The typeof operator and its misbehavior

You are probably familiar with the typeof operator in JavaScript:

// Checking the type of a value
typeof 'something' // 'string'
typeof 2022 // 'number'

// Checking the type of a variable
let add = (a, b) => a + b
typeof add // 'function'

It always returns a string and the possible return values, according to MDN, are the following: undefined, object, boolean, number, bigint, string, symbol, and function. For all the other values that are not in this list, typeof will return "object".

Can we really depend on typeof to check all kinds of values? No we can’t. It’s very limited and kinda confusing. For example, if you try to get the type of an array, here’s what you will get back:

typeof [] // 'object'

Of course, arrays in JavaScript are indeed objects. But someone will argue that functions are too. So why do we get a return value for functions and not for arrays, which are also really common in our daily code?

The results of typeof are not only incomplete, but they are buggy too. You may probably know that null is also an object:

typeof null // returns 'object'

That didn’t go very well. 🤪

Instead of having the programming language work for us, we have to do the thinking here.

Thankfully, TypeScript knows about such misbehaviors and it can protect us from unnecessary bugs.

The instanceof operator

We can check if a specific object is an instance of another object:

function count(values: number | Array<number>): number {
  if (values instanceof Array) {
    return values.reduce(
      (previousValue, currentValue) => previousValue + currentValue,

  return values

Remember that in JavaScript we have prototypical inheritance. Every object has a prototype, and it derives all its logic. This works like a chain. The parent object of all objects is the actual Object.

In the example above, we are counting the numbers by reducing an array of values. If we get a single number instead of an array, we are returning the number itself. We check if the values argument is an instance of the Array object. If you don’t check this before calling the reduce method, TypeScript will throw an error, because a number doesn’t implement this method.

Searching for the truth

I bet you are also familiar with the if statements, so I’m not going to elaborate more on this topic.

Maybe you are not familiar with the fact that JavaScript can accept any kind of value in a conditional:

if (3.14) {
  // oops, that's not a boolean, but is it truthy?
  return 'the value is truthy'

What JavaScript is doing here, is to coerce the number to a boolean, and then to evaluate the condition:

if (new Boolean(3.14)) {
  return 'the value is truthy'

You may be wondering how JavaScript decides which values are truthy or falsy? That’s one of the trickiest quirks of the language.

Prepare to be amazed! 😋

Falsy values

When you compare values, the following are always equals **false: null, undefined, false, 0, -0, NaN and the empty string “”:

// All the following return false
Boolean(false) // The obvious boolean false
Boolean(null) // A null value
Boolean(undefined) // An undefined value
Boolean(0) // The number zero
Boolean(-0) // The negative number zero
Boolean(0n) // The bigint zero
Boolean(NaN) // The result of an operation that is not a number
Boolean('') // An empty string

Everything else always equals true:

// Be careful, all the following will return true
Boolean(true) // The obvious boolean true
Boolean({}) // Any object
Boolean([]) // Any array (which is an object)
Boolean(new Date()) // Any date (which is an object)
Boolean(42) // Any number, except zero
Boolean(-42) // Any negative number, except zero
Boolean(12n) // Any bigint, except zero
Boolean(3.14) // Any float number, except zero
Boolean(-3.14) // Any negative float number, except zero
Boolean('0') // Any string, except an empty one, including "0"
Boolean('false') // Any string, except an empty one, including "false"
Boolean(Infinity) // Any object
Boolean(-Infinity) // Any object
Boolean(() => {}) // Any function

The list of truthy values in JavaScript is infinite.

You can also use the ternary operator to save some space:

'false' ? 'truthy' : 'falsy' // returns 'truthy'

I recommend for newbies to spend some time getting familiar with the truthy and the falsy values of JavaScript.

Switch statements & Exhaustiveness checking

We can simplify the example above by using a switch statement:

function getWidth(width?: string | number): string {
  switch (typeof width) {
    case 'number':
      return `${width}px`
    case 'string':
      return width
      return 'auto'

Switch statements support any value you can imagine, even a computed one. We use them to refactor multiple blocks of if statements. More on them later.

TypeScript can be really powerful when you are using a switch statement. With a feature called exhaustiveness checking, you can be sure that you handled all the available cases.

Let’s illustrate this logic in the following example:

type ActionTypes = 'LOADING' | 'LOADED';

interface LoadingState {
  isLoading: boolean;

function reducer(
  currentState: LoadingState,
  actionType: ActionTypes
): LoadingState {
  switch (actionType) {
    case 'LOADING':
      return { ...currentState, isLoading: true };
    case 'LOADED':
      return { ...currentState, isLoading: false };
      **const _exhaustiveCheck: never = actionType;
      return _exhaustiveCheck;**

The never keyword can play the role of the type guard here. Remember that we can’t assign any type of value to a variable with the type never, except from values that are themselves type of never.

We basically have a reducer here, which accepts the currentState and the actionType and it returns the updated state. We define all our action types in a type alias. The magic happens within the default ****case. We assign the actionType to a variable that is only meant to be used for exhaustiveness checking. Theoretically, if we did exhaust all the possible cases of the actionType values, we would never end up with the default case.

Every time we add a new case block, TypeScript eliminates one of the possible values. When we reach the default case, it expects that there are no types left, which means the type of the actionType argument is never.

Can you guess how powerful this is? 🤠

Let’s imagine that we have another action, to indicate that something has failed:

type ActionTypes = 'LOADING' | 'LOADED' | 'FAILED'

The moment we change our type alias, TypeScript will throw an error:


You have successfully guarded your reducer from action types that it doesn’t handle.

Logical Operators

JavaScript has the following operators: && and ||. But there’s a catch!

The result value of AND, and OR operations in JavaScript is notBoolean.

The logical OR || operators return the first value if it’s true, or the second one if it’s false:

var s = 'text'
var n = 5
s || n // returns 'text'

It’s also a good hack to set a default value in case of a missing variable:

const tracks = response || []

In the example above, if the response is undefined, we will set an empty array as the initial value. How cool is that?

The logical AND && operators return the value of the second argument if both values are true, or the first one if both values are false, or the first falsy value:

var s = 'text'
var n = 5
s && n // returns 'text'

It’s a good hack to display UI elements:

function renderTracks(tracks) {
  return tracks && => <Track track={track} />)

This example will make sense to you if you are familiar with React’s JSX. Basically, we are checking whether the tracks parameter is truthy, which means it’s an array. Since the second part will always be truthy, this is the value we will return. If tracks is null or undefined, we will return that value. It may seem like a huge hack, but it’s been used in every React application.

Finally, the && operator is more precedent than ||:

// with the parenthesis
a || (b && c)
// without the parenthesis (same result)
a || (b && c)

Comparison Operators

There are two different ways to compare if the two values are equal. The == double equals and the === triple equals operators.

The double equals == performs an implicit coercion before the comparison; aka it doesn’t check the types of the values. You should only use it if you and everybody in your team understand how it works and if you are familiar with all its misbehavior.

5 == '5' // true

I will address how this works in a moment. For now I want you to remember that most of the time you should use the triple equals operator === which also checks the type of the variable:

5 === '5' // false
5 === 3 + 2 // true

Objects are being checked for their reference. JavaScript will never compare their values.

{ name: 'Nicos' } === { name: 'Nicos' }  // false

Ah, and NaN is not equal to itself:

NaN == NaN // false
NaN === NaN // false

Which is the reason we use method:, NaN) // true

It is safe to use == with the typeof operator:

if (typeof five == 'number') {
  return 'no way!'

To compare if the two values are not equal, of course, you can use != and !==. They work similarly with equal operators. Abstract relational comparison (<, >, <=, >=) always coerces the values, similar to ==.

And one more thing to make fun of your other JavaScript colleagues;  a > b is actually !(b < a). 😎

TypeScript understands all these rules as you compare values that can accept different types, and it can predict what the result type will be. This doesn’t work all of the time. It is suggested to setup a linter, if you want to have an indicator that you are probably making some mistakes, as you type code.

Some words about Coercion

In JavaScript there is a weird feature called Coercion. Somehow the language itself takes care of the casting for you, so that you don’t have to. As we’ve seen this is happening everywhere in your code.

Here’s an example we’ve seen before:

5 == '5' // true

Obviously the number five is not equal to the string five. But that’s how the double equal operator is working. It first coerces (converts) the values, and then it compares them. In JavaScript, you can compare any value, regardless of their types. Conditionals can even be used anywhere in your code, as a valid expression.

That’s basically called implicit coercion, because you don’t explicitly cast the value by yourself.

A lot of people prefer explicit coercion. Here’s an example:

5 == Number('5') // true

Now, there’s a misconception about how types will be coerced. Do you expect JavaScript to convert the string to a number or the number to a string? Let’s give it a try:

5 + '1' // '51'

Yup! We have a winner! 😋 In general, there is a priority in place:

// String beats everyone
2 + '1' + true  // '21true'
// Number beats booleans
2 + true  // 3
// Avoid non-primitive types
{} == {}  // false

Coercion is indeed a powerful feature, which is intended to help you reduce code and improve readability. It’s one of the reasons developers who are new to coding like JavaScript. It’s extremely unpredictable, though. And you should spend an amount of time getting used to it.

“Every JavaScript developer should spend some time to understand the concept of Coercion and learn its rules.” Kyle Simpson

The in operator

We can check if an object contains a member, by using the in operator:

interface Playable {
  filename: string
  play: () => void

interface UnPlayable {
  filename: string

function playFile(file: Playable | UnPlayable) {
  if ('play' in file) {

In this example, we have two interfaces. Only one of them contains the play() method. In the play function, we can narrow down the file objects, to find the ones that are playable.

Type predicates

What if I told you that you can use all the tools you’ve learned above to build your own type guards? Sounds intriguing? 😉

Here’s an example:

function isPlayable(file: Object): file is Playable {
  return 'play' in file

Mind the is operator in the return value of this function. This is not a function that returns a Playable. It acts as a type guard that checks if an object is Playable. By saying file is Playable, we are creating a logical indicator that helps TypeScript treat this function as a type guard.

We can now use this type guard to simplify the logic of our play() function:

function playFile(file: Playable | UnPlayable) {
  if (isPlayable(file)) {

Notice how TypeScript now recognizes the type guard and it doesn’t complain about the missing play() method in file. What a nice feature. This feature is quite useful in a language like JavaScript.

This article took a lot of time, but I’m really happy I collected everything you need to know about narrowing types in TypeScript.

If it helped you learn something new, then a tweet would be great 🙂.

Cover Photo Credit: Rodion Kutsaev