Business
Jobs
  • About Us
  • Solutions
    • Job Postings
      Post your job and receive qualified candidates in 48h.
    • Candidate Assessments
      500+ technical and psychological tests, plus anti-fraud.
    • Headhunting
      Tailor-made executive search from start to finish.
    • Payroll + EOR
      Payroll dispersal and EOR across 15+ LATAM countries.
  • Pricing
  • Jobs

0

508
Views
An index signature parameter type cannot be a union type. Consider using a mapped object type instead

I'm trying to use the following pattern:

enum Option {
  ONE = 'one',
  TWO = 'two',
  THREE = 'three'
}

interface OptionRequirement {
  someBool: boolean;
  someString: string;
}

interface OptionRequirements {
  [key: Option]: OptionRequirement;
}

This seems very straightforward to me, however I get the following error:

An index signature parameter type cannot be a union type. Consider using a mapped object type instead.

What am I doing wrong?

over 4 years ago · Santiago Trujillo
7 answers
Answer question

0

The simplest solution is to use Record

type OptionRequirements = Record<Options, OptionRequirement>

You can also implement it yourself as:

type OptionRequirements = {
  [key in Options]: OptionRequirement;
}

This construct is only available to type, but not interface.

The problem in your definition is saying the key of your interface should be of type Options, where Options is an enum, not a string, number, or symbol.

The key in Options means "for those specific keys that's in the union type Options".

type alias is more flexible and powerful than interface.

If your type does not need to be used in class, choose type over interface.

over 4 years ago · Santiago Trujillo Report

0

You can use TS "in" operator and do this:

enum Options {
  ONE = 'one',
  TWO = 'two',
  THREE = 'three',
}
interface OptionRequirement {
  someBool: boolean;
  someString: string;
}
type OptionRequirements = {
  [key in Options]: OptionRequirement; // Note that "key in".
}
over 4 years ago · Santiago Trujillo Report

0

I had some similar problem but my case was with another field property in interface so my solution as an example with optional field property with an enum for keys:

export enum ACTION_INSTANCE_KEY {
  cat = 'cat',
  dog = 'dog',
  cow = 'cow',
  book = 'book'
}

type ActionInstances = {
  [key in ACTION_INSTANCE_KEY]?: number; // cat id/dog id/cow id/ etc // <== optional
};

export interface EventAnalyticsAction extends ActionInstances { // <== need to be extended
  marker: EVENT_ANALYTIC_ACTION_TYPE; // <== if you wanna add another field to interface
}
over 4 years ago · Santiago Trujillo Report

0

Instead of using an interface, use a mapped object type

enum Option {
  ONE = 'one',
  TWO = 'two',
  THREE = 'three'
}

type OptionKeys = keyof typeof Option;

interface OptionRequirement {
  someBool: boolean;
  someString: string;
}

type OptionRequirements = {                 // note type, not interface
  [key in OptionKeys]: OptionRequirement;   // key in
}
over 4 years ago · Santiago Trujillo Report

0

I had a similar issue. I was trying to use only specific keys when creating angular form validators.

export enum FormErrorEnum {
  unknown = 'unknown',
  customError = 'customError',
}

export type FormError = keyof typeof FormErrorEnum;

And the usage:

static customFunction(param: number, param2: string): ValidatorFn {
  return (control: AbstractControl): { [key: FormErrorEnum]?: any } => {
    return { customError: {param, param2} };
  };
}

This will allow for 1 - X number of keys to be used.

over 4 years ago · Santiago Trujillo Report

0

In my case I needed the properties to be optional, so I created this generic type.

type PartialRecord<K extends string | number | symbol, T> = { [P in K]?: T; };

Then use it as such:

type MyTypes = 'TYPE_A' | 'TYPE_B' | 'TYPE_C';

interface IContent {
    name: string;
    age: number;
}

interface IExample {
    type: string;
    partials: PartialRecord<MyTypes, IContent>;
}

Example

const example : IExample = {
    type: 'some-type',
    partials: {
        TYPE_A : {
            name: 'name',
            age: 30
        },
        TYPE_C : {
            name: 'another name',
            age: 50
        }
    }
}
over 4 years ago · Santiago Trujillo Report

0

In my case:

export type PossibleKeysType =
  | 'userAgreement'
  | 'privacy'
  | 'people';

interface ProviderProps {
  children: React.ReactNode;
  items: {
    //   ↙ this colon was issue
    [key: PossibleKeysType]: Array<SectionItemsType>;
  };
}

I fixed it by using in operator instead of using :

~~~

interface ProviderProps {
  children: React.ReactNode;
  items: {
    //     ↙ use "in" operator
    [key in PossibleKeysType]: Array<SectionItemsType>;
  };
}
over 4 years ago · Santiago Trujillo Report
Answer question
Find remote jobs

Discover the new way to find a job!

Top jobs
Top job categories
Business
Post vacancy Pricing Sales
Legal
Terms and conditions Privacy policy
© 2026 PeakU Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Andres GPT
Show me some job opportunities
There's an error!