tsc --build false negative through export star facade project

[jasonkuhrt]

tsc --build false negative through export * facade project

TypeScript Version

7.0.1-rc

Repro

Repo: https://github.com/jasonkuhrt/ts-project-reference-reexport-stale-repro

git clone https://github.com/jasonkuhrt/ts-project-reference-reexport-stale-repro.git
cd ts-project-reference-reexport-stale-repro
pnpm install
pnpm repro

Project layout:

.
├── source/
│   ├── tsconfig.json     # composite project
│   └── index.ts          # exports Status
├── facade/
│   ├── tsconfig.json     # composite project, references ../source
│   └── index.ts          # re-exports source
└── consumer/
    ├── tsconfig.json     # composite project, references ../facade
    └── index.ts          # imports Status through facade

Dependency path:

consumer/index.ts -> facade/index.ts -> source/index.ts

Relevant source:

// source/index.ts
export type Status = "old";

// facade/index.ts
export * from "../source/index";

// consumer/index.ts
import type { Status } from "../facade/index";

export const status: "old" = null as unknown as Status;

The only compiler option in each project is composite: true.

Actual Behavior

pnpm repro first builds with:

// source/index.ts
export type Status = "old";

Then it changes the source project to:

export type Status = "new";

The incremental build incorrectly exits 0.

The facade declaration remains textually unchanged:

export * from "../source/index";

The consumer declaration remains stale:

export declare const status: "old";

Expected Behavior

The incremental build should fail like the clean build does:

consumer/index.ts(3,14): error TS2322: Type '"new"' is not assignable to type '"old"'.

Notes

This is not pnpm workspace/package-exports behavior. The repro uses no workspace
packages and no package imports.

#46153 looks related,
but this is a minimal export * facade case where the intermediate project emits
stable declaration text while its re-exported public API changes.

[jakebailey]

Jason Kuhrt (@jasonkuhrt) John Favret (@johnfav03) Is this a 7.0 regression? Or does this reproduce in 6.0?

[johnfav03]

@jasonkuhrt @johnfav03 Is this a 7.0 regression? Or does this reproduce in 6.0?

This is not a 7.0 regression, it reproduces in 6.0

[johnfav03]

Fixed in #4301