Skip Main Navigation

Use cases for TypeScript const assertions

Cases where TypeScript const assertions help avoid type errors with union literals in objects and more

January 17, 2021 · 4 min read

Have you ever run into a problem where TypeScript incorrectly infers the types of properties of an object? And then when you try to pass a piece (or all) of it to a function it’s a type error? Usually this happens to me because of “literal type widening” of union string literal types within object literal declarations.

Phew, that was a lot of technical terms. 😅 Let’s ground ourselves with an example:

const notify = (
  data: unknown,
  }: {
    sport: string
    // 👇🏾 union string literal
    level: 'player' | 'team' | 'sport' | 'all'  },
) => {
  // notify data

  sport: 'nba',
  // 👇🏾 trying to use one of the literals in the union
  level: 'team',}

notify('James Harden traded to the Nets 😢', DEFAULT_NBA_OPTIONS)
// ❌ TS Error!
// Argument of type '{ sport: string; level: string; }'
// is not assignable to parameter of type
// '{ sport: string; level: "all" | "player" | "team" | "sport"; }'.
//  Types of property 'level' are incompatible.
//    Type 'string' is not assignable to type
//    '"all" | "player" | "team" | "sport"'.

Curious about the use of unknown? Read When to use TypeScript unknown vs any.

The problem is that even though we defined DEFAULT_NBA_OPTIONS with a level of 'team', when the object gets passed to notify() the type of level is string which can’t be assigned to the string union type 'player' | 'team' | 'sport' | 'all'. Interestingly enough, if we pass the object inline, it works:

notify('James Harden traded to the Nets 😢', {
  sport: 'nba',
  level: 'team',})
// 👍🏾 No error

This works because the type of level is now the string literal 'team' which is assignable to our string union type.

Now there are several ways we could fix this type error, including creating a NotifyOptions type which we would define as the type of the second parameter of notify(), as well as the type of DEFAULT_NBA_OPTIONS. But let’s say we don’t want to (or can’t) do that. One way we can solve it is by using a const assertion:

  sport: 'nba',
  level: 'team',
} as const
notify('James Harden traded to the Nets 😢', DEFAULT_NBA_OPTIONS)

The const assertion takes the type of DEFAULT_NBA_OPTIONS from being:

  sport: string
  level: string


  readonly sport: "nba"
  readonly level: "team"

The type of DEFAULT_NBA_OPTIONS.level is now the literal 'team' just like when we passed it inline. And because 'team' is assignable to our string union type, everything works swimmingly. And the const assertion also makes the properties of DEFAULT_NBA_OPTIONS read-only so that they cannot be changed.

So why is the const assertion necessary? Why weren’t the types of sport and level the specific literals, 'nba' and 'team', instead of the more general string type? Well, by default TypeScript performs what’s called “literal type widening” for objects. That way when we define an object, we can change a property like we would expect:

const player = {
  name: 'James Harden',
  team: 'Houston Rockets',

// not a type error
// (as a Rockets fan, I wish it was) = 'Brooklyn Nets' // 😢

So with the const assertion we’re telling TypeScript not to widen any literal types, but have the types match their literal values.

Another cool use of const assertions is with React custom Hooks. Typically when a custom Hook returns 2 values, we return it using an array tuple (just like the useState Hook):

const useUserSearch = () => {
  const [username, setUsername] = useState('')
  const [user, setUser] = useState<User | null>(null)

  useEffect(() => {
    if (username) {
    } else {
  }, [username])

  // use const assertion for the correct return type
  // User first, function second
  return [user, setUsername] as const}

Without the const assertion, the inferred return type of useUserSearch would be:

(User | ((username: string) => void))[]

Translation: an array of string or (username: string) => void types in any order. It could be an array of 0 or 100 items. The first item can be the function or all items could be. But that’s not what we want. We specifically want a “tuple” where the first item is a User and the second item is the function. With the const assertion, the type is now:

readonly [User, (username: string) => void]

The order is correct, the length is fixed, and the array is read-only. 🎉

Usually the need for const assertions can be avoided by being very specific with the types of our objects, arrays or return values. But declaring specific types can sometimes be onerous or even infeasible. It’s nice to be able to rely on TypeScript’s type inference. Const assertions provide an additional “hint” to TypeScript so that it can infer correctly.

I mentioned earlier that there are several ways to solve the original type error I showed. What approaches have you used to solve it? I’m very curious to find out. 😄 Feel free to reach out to me on Twitter at @benmvp.

Keep learning my friends. 🤓

Subscribe to the Newsletter

Get notified about new blog posts, minishops & other goodies

Hi, I'm Ben Ilegbodu. 👋🏾

I'm a Christian, husband, and father of 3, with 15+ years of professional experience developing user interfaces for the Web. I'm a Principal Frontend Engineer at Stitch Fix, frontend development teacher, Google Developer Expert, and Microsoft MVP. I love helping developers level up their frontend skills.

Discuss on Twitter // Edit on GitHub