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

答案很简单。然而，这种解决方案至少在大约3/4的情况下是可能的(尽管并不总是理想的)。所以，换句话说，这可能与阅读这篇文章的人有关。

假设我有一个非常简单的函数，需要知道参数的接口类型:

const simpleFunction = (canBeTwoInterfaces: interfaceA | interface B) => { 
  // if interfaceA, then return canBeTwoInterfaces.A
  // if interfaceB, then return canBeTwoInterfaces.B
}

得到最多赞的答案往往是使用“功能检查”。也就是说,

const simpleFunction = (canBeTwoInterfaces: interfaceA | interface B) => { 
  if (canBeTwoInterfaces.onlyExistsOnInterfaceA) return canBeTwoInterfaces.A
  else return canBeTwoInterfaces.B
}

然而，在我正在使用的代码库中，我需要检查的接口主要包含可选参数。另外，我团队里的其他人可能会在我不知情的情况下突然改名字。如果这听起来像您正在使用的代码库，那么下面的函数要安全得多。

就像我之前说的，这对很多人来说可能是一件非常明显的事情。尽管如此，要知道何时何地应用给定的解决方案并不明显，不管它是否恰好像下面这样非常简单。

这就是我要做的:

const simpleFunction = (
  canBeTwoInterfaces: interfaceA | interface B,
  whichInterfaceIsIt: 'interfaceA' | 'interfaceB'
) => { 
  if (whichInterfaceIsIt === 'interfaceA') return canBeTwoInterface.A
  else return canBeTwoInterfaces.B
}

你可以在没有instanceof关键字的情况下实现你想要的，因为你现在可以编写自定义类型保护:

interface A {
    member: string;
}

function instanceOfA(object: any): object is A {
    return 'member' in object;
}

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

if (instanceOfA(a)) {
    alert(a.member);
}

会员众多

如果需要检查大量成员以确定对象是否与您的类型匹配，则可以添加标识符。下面是最基本的示例，并要求您管理自己的鉴别器…您需要深入了解模式，以确保避免重复标识符。

interface A {
    discriminator: 'I-AM-A';
    member: string;
}

function instanceOfA(object: any): object is A {
    return object.discriminator === 'I-AM-A';
}

var a: any = {discriminator: 'I-AM-A', member: "foobar"};

if (instanceOfA(a)) {
    alert(a.member);
}

与上面使用用户定义守卫的情况相同，但这次使用的是箭头函数谓词

interface A {
  member:string;
}

const check = (p: any): p is A => p.hasOwnProperty('member');

var foo: any = { member: "foobar" };
if (check(foo))
    alert(foo.member);

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.