你可以在运行时使用ts-validate-type验证TypeScript类型，就像这样(确实需要一个Babel插件):

const user = validateType<{ name: string }>(data);

简单的解决方案，与所选的解决方案有相同的缺点，但这个变体捕捉JS错误，只接受对象作为参数，并有一个有意义的返回值。

interface A{
    member:string;
}

const implementsA = (o: object): boolean => {
    try {
        return 'member' in o;
    } catch (error) {
        return false;
    }
}

const a:any={member:"foobar"};

implementsA(a) && console.log("a implements A");
// implementsA("str"); // causes TS transpiler error

TypeGuards

interface MyInterfaced {
    x: number
}

function isMyInterfaced(arg: any): arg is MyInterfaced {
    return arg.x !== undefined;
}

if (isMyInterfaced(obj)) {
    (obj as MyInterfaced ).x;
}

export interface ConfSteps {
    group: string;
    key: string;
    steps: string[];
}

private verify(): void {
    const obj = `{
      "group": "group",
      "key": "key",
      "steps": [],
      "stepsPlus": []
    } `;
    if (this.implementsObject<ConfSteps>(obj, ['group', 'key', 'steps'])) {
      console.log(`Implements ConfSteps: ${obj}`);
    }
  }

private objProperties: Array<string> = [];

private implementsObject<T>(obj: any, keys: (keyof T)[]): boolean {
    JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj), (key, value) => {
      this.objProperties.push(key);
    });
    for (const key of keys) {
      if (!this.objProperties.includes(key.toString())) {
        return false;
      }
    }
    this.objProperties = null;
    return true;
  }

自OP以来将近9年，这个问题仍然存在。我真的很想爱上Typescript。通常我都能成功。但它在打字安全方面的漏洞是我捏着的鼻子挡不住的恶臭。

我的解决方案并不完美。但我的观点是，它们比大多数更常用的解决方案要好。鉴别符已被证明是一种糟糕的实践，因为它们限制了可伸缩性并完全违背了类型安全的目的。我的两个最漂亮的解决方案是，按顺序排列:

Class Decorator: Recursively scans the typed object's members and computes a hash based on the symbol names. Associates the hash with the type name in a static KVP property. Include the type name in the hash calculation to mitigate risk of ambiguity with ancestors (happens with empty subclasses). Pros: It's proven to be the most trustworthy. It is also provides very strict enforcements. This is also similar to how other high-level languages natively implement polymorphism. Howbeit, the solution requires much further extension in order to be truly polymorphic. Cons: Anonymous/JSON objects have to be rehashed with every type check, since they have no type definitions to associate and statically cache. Excessive stack overhead results in significant performance bottlenecks in high load scenarios. Can be mitigated with IoC containers, but that can also be undesirable overhead for small apps with no other rationale. Also requires extra diligence to apply the decorator to every object requiring it.

Cloning: Very ugly, but can be beneficial with thoughtful strategies. Create a new instance of the typed object and reflexively copy the top-level member assignments from the anonymous object. Given a predetermined standard for passage, you can simultaneously check and clone-cast to types. Something akin to "tryParse" from other languages. Pros: In certain scenarios, resource overhead can be mitigated by immediately using the converted "test" instance. No additional diligence required for decorators. Large amount of flexibility tolerances. Cons: Memory leaks like a flour sifter. Without a "deep" clone, mutated references can break other components not anticipating the breach of encapsulation. Static caching not applicable, so operations are executed on each and every call--objects with high quantities of top-level members will impact performance. Developers who are new to Typescript will mistake you for a junior due to not understanding why you've written this kind of pattern.

All totalled: I don't buy the "JS doesn't support it" excuse for Typescript's nuances in polymorphism. Transpilers are absolutely appropriate for that purpose. To treat the wounds with salt: it comes from Microsoft. They've solved this same problem many years ago with great success: .Net Framework offered a robust Interop API for adopting backwards compatibility with COM and ActiveX. They didn't try to transpile to the older runtimes. That solution would have been much easier and less messy for a loose and interpreted language like JS...yet they cowered out with the fear of losing ground to other supersets. Using the very shortcomings in JS that was meant to be solved by TS, as a malformed basis for redefining static typed Object-Oriented principle is--well--nonsense. It smacks against the volumes of industry-leading documentation and specifications which have informed high-level software development for decades.

在TypeScript 1.6中，用户定义的类型保护将完成这项工作。

interface Foo {
    fooProperty: string;
}

interface Bar {
    barProperty: string;
}

function isFoo(object: any): object is Foo {
    return 'fooProperty' in object;
}

let object: Foo | Bar;

if (isFoo(object)) {
    // `object` has type `Foo`.
    object.fooProperty;
} else {
    // `object` has type `Bar`.
    object.barProperty;
}

正如Joe Yang提到的:从TypeScript 2.0开始，你甚至可以利用带标签的联合类型。

interface Foo {
    type: 'foo';
    fooProperty: string;
}

interface Bar {
    type: 'bar';
    barProperty: number;
}

let object: Foo | Bar;

// You will see errors if `strictNullChecks` is enabled.
if (object.type === 'foo') {
    // object has type `Foo`.
    object.fooProperty;
} else {
    // object has type `Bar`.
    object.barProperty;
}

它也适用于开关。