PropTypes.oneOf warning does not include expected types

[aweary]

Original issue: facebook/react#1919

[reznord]

@aweary Is that the reason why CRA doesn't warn if we do not include PropTypes in the application. But any reason why PropTypes is removed from React Core?

[jackyho112]

Looks like the warning message is still the same one that doesn't let the user know oneOfType should be used instead if the user is misusing oneOf by passing in checkType functions.

All attempts to solve the problem as referenced in the discussion aimed to solve this potential misunderstanding by trying to identify this specific misuse and if identified, display a warning message to direct the user to use oneOfType instead.

Is that what we are going with to solve this issue? May I give this one a go?

[bytetwin]

@aweary Provided a warn in PR 36.

[ljharb]

If I want a prop to literally be a specific function, I have to be able to pass a function into oneOf.

[oliviertassinari]

• I believe the issue description is inaccurate. It's about PropTypes.oneOfType output that is hard to make actionable: Support objects with <Select> mui/material-ui#10845.

  value: PropTypes.oneOfType([
    PropTypes.string,
    PropTypes.number,
    PropTypes.arrayOf(PropTypes.oneOfType([PropTypes.string, PropTypes.number])),
  ]),

• PropTypes.oneOf output is great, for instance:

color: PropTypes.oneOf(['default', 'inherit', 'primary', 'secondary']),

[joshalling]

I have been looking into supplying the expected types with a oneOfType warning. See PR #198

However, I noticed that my solution does not account for using non-primitive types like shape or exact within oneOfType. It looks like that will be a much bigger project that will also involve writing more tests.

My idea is to pass the expected types within the PropTypeError's that are sent to the createUnionTypeChecker so that they are accessible within the scope of that function. That being said, a change like this has a big impact on the package as a whole as it would affect all PropTypeError's moving forward.

I would love to tackle this if people are interested. However, I don't want to get really deep into this if it has no chance of being merged due to the overall effect it would have on the package, or if the community just doesn't see a need for it.

Thoughts?