You Deserve More than PropTypes

Nov 17, 2019 · ☕☕ 7 min read
Epistemic Effort: I've spent a good amount of time discussing it. I'm willing to engage in a conversation if you'd like to teach me something new on the matter or prove me wrong.

I’m starting with reasons why I think PropTypes are not good enough, and later I’m showing what TypeScript gives you to solve these problems and improve your React code even more on top of it.

I’d like to be clear — I’m not bashing prop-types — It’s a really good library, but the last publish was 9 months ago. As I’m writing this, it’s November 2019, and there are much better alternatives for prop types.

I’ve chosen TypeScript because of its popularity, but my arguments fit any language with first-class type composition you can use to build React apps (Flow, Reason, Kotlin, Scala).


It’s easy to half-ass PropTypes

I’ve seen too many of lines with //eslint-disable-next-line react/forbid-prop-types. Few codebases leverage PropTypes to their full potential — mostly libraries (see Reach UI tabs).

I find exporting propTypes uncommon. Instead of using exported common types, developers either use PropTypes.object or copy PropTypes.shape from another component.

Maybe it is hard to remember that you strip them out in production build, and that’s why the devs I’ve met don’t want to make them too big and heavy?

PropTypes.func is just not enough

Functions make stuff happen. They are pretty important. Types of functions are important too. Stating that a prop is just a function, doesn’t document intent. You still need to read the implementation to get the slightest idea of what’s happening.

interface VideoListProps : RProps {
    var videos: List<Video>
    var selectedVideo: Video?
    var onSelectVideo: (Video) -> Unit

copied from Kotlin React tutorial

Take a look at the props above. onSelectVideo takes a video and returns a unit. This is a lot more information than ”onSelectVideo is a function”. We could argue that the name of the function should be enough, but what if a possibility to select multiple videos was added later, as an additional feature? If someone forgot to change the function name, PropTypes.func would still fit, and some other poor soul would get surprised by a runtime error.

Optional is a bad default for application code

I do agree that nullable by default is a good design choice in some cases. GraphQL is a perfect example. Responses stitched from many data stores may return partial data. This is the complexity we have to handle.

And I’d say we have about enough of it. We should avoid introducing more complexity ourselves. Every optional field without a default of the same type increases cyclomatic complexity.

Person.propTypes = {
  car: PropTypes.shape({
    registrationNumber: PropTypes.string,
    year: PropTypes.number,

source: first blogpost in google search results for “PropTypes isRequired”

Does this person have a car? Maybe. I live in a big city; I don’t have one too. But is an empty object {} really a valid car for our app? Do we display an error message here? Did we just forget to write isRequired, or are we okay with cars without license plates?

Typing isRequired is yet another small decision for a programmer. The fact that stating that a prop is nullable is an easier way allows to accidentally introduce complexity. isOptional instead of isRequired would be a better API design.

type Props = ?

TypeScript is much better in describing React component props than PropTypes. Let’s look at how it solves the problems I’ve mentioned before.

easy to half-ass?

Add strict: true to your tsconfig.json, stray from any and now you’re forced to maintain a decent level of type safety. Also, it’s pretty obvious, even before a morning coffee, that it has no runtime cost.

typing functions?

(selected: Video) => void. Pretty easy, amiright? Programming, even OOP, is mostly about using functions to do stuff. Ability to describe the type of a function is quite useful.

optional by default?

In TypeScript, you gotta stick this ? every time you want an optional property.

type Car = {
  registrationNumber: string;
  year?: number;
We deal only with registered cars up in here.

And look at what else we get!


I could talk about subtyping and Liskov Substitution Principle, but I’ll simplify it a little bit. If it’s a button, it should be buttony.
Props you expect on a button should be accepted by all of your design system buttons. What do I expect? At least onClick, onFocus, disabled, className, and style. We can handle all attributes of HTML <button> element, including all global attributes with a simple spread

import { ComponentProps, FC } from "react";

type ButtonVariant = "default" | "call-to-action";

interface ButtonProps extends ComponentProps<"button"> {
  variant?: ButtonVariant;

See more on CodeSandbox

Do you want your Button to be inferior to a button? I don’t think so.

Omit<LinkProps, "to">

But what if my component comes “batteries included” and I don’t want to accept all props of the component I’m building upon?
Only like… most of them? We can Omit what we don’t like. Just like that.

interface JoinMeetingButton
  extends Omit<ButtonProps, "onClick">,
    Pick<Meeting, "id"> {}

Union Types

The anchors and the buttons often look the same in the mockups, but they are different kinds of animals. We want to reuse the styling and behavior between them and make choosing the right one for the job effortless.

We can use union types to build a Button component which renders an anchor, given a href prop and renders a <button> otherwise.

import { ComponentProps } from "react";

interface ButtonAsAnchorProps extends ComponentProps<"a"> {
  href: string;
interface ButtonAsButtonProps extends ComponentProps<"button"> {
  href?: undefined;

type ButtonProps = ButtonAsAnchorProps | ButtonAsButtonProps;

function Button({ className: propsClassName, ...rest }: ButtonProps) {
  const className = ["Button", propsClassName].join(" ");

  if (rest.href !== undefined) {
    return <a className={className} {...rest} />;

  return <button className={className} {...rest} />;

Pick<Meeting, "date" | "organizer">

We can select properties from our types with Pick.

type MeetingInfoProps = Pick<Meeting, "date" | "organizer">;
const MeetingInfo = ({ date, organizer }: MeetingInfoProps) => (
    {new Date(date).toLocaleString()}{organizer.name}

Imagine that Meeting is a type of data we get from the backend. We want to show MeetingInfo — a date and organizer of the meeting and we don’t really care about the type of these date and organizer props. We care about their origin. They come from the Meeting type and that’s what’s important for this component. Will this component break when the representation of our meetings change? Yes. And we want it to. Also, we avoid introducing new names
(e.g.<MeetingInfo author={meeting.organizer} />).


PropTypes are not first class. They’re a library trying to implement what is often a language feature. If you’re building an app, you don’t need runtime typechecking. Try swapping prop-types for TypeScript or Flow and tweet me what you think.

You can see the types I’ve written about used together in the sandbox below.

Edited 16 times between Nov 02, 2019 and Sep 14, 2020.see 1 more on GitHub