DEV Community

Microsoft Azure

Typed Bindings for TypeScript Azure Functions

aaronpowell profile image Aaron Powell Originally published at on ・3 min read

A few weeks ago Microsoft announced their improvements to TypeScript Azure Functions with some new templates to help you get started.

As I’m currently doing a bunch of stuff with Azure Functions I decided to give it a go and share some of my learnings. Today I want to talk about how to improve the typedness of Azure Functions with TypeScript.

With TypeScript, and naturally JavaScript, we rely on the function.json file to create our bindings to different services (since we don’t have a static type system like .NET functions can leverage). But this results in a disconnect between what we’re binding and what our editor knows about.

A standard HTTP Trigger binding will see a file scaffolded like this in TypeScript:

import { AzureFunction, Context, HttpRequest } from "@azure/functions"

const httpTrigger: AzureFunction = async function (context: Context, req: HttpRequest): Promise<void> {
    // function code here

export default httpTrigger;

Here we’re relying on a bunch of primitive types provided by the Functions TypeScript package, but it doesn’t understand our application at all.

Extending built-in interfaces

To improve on this I’ve started extending the built-in interfaces that are provided in the @azure/functions package to understand the bindings I’m creating, like so:

import { AzureFunction, Context, HttpRequest } from "@azure/functions"

interface InputHttpRequest extends HttpRequest {
    query: {
        name: string

const httpTrigger: AzureFunction = async function (context: Context, req: InputHttpRequest): Promise<void> {
    const name =;

    // function body

export default httpTrigger;

For this example instead of leaving req.query with the type [key: string]: string, meaning it’s a dictionary of anything, I’m saying that I expect the query string provided to have name as one value (and potentially others, but I only care about name). This then gives me good code completion of just how I expect my type to look and when I create tests I know the shape of the object as well.

Typing bindings

Let’s say that you’ve got two additional bindings on your function, a queue output and HTTP response output. Again we can extend the built in types to achieve this, this time we’ll extend Context.

Here’s the bindings from our function.json:

      "type": "http",
      "direction": "out",
      "name": "res"
      "type": "queue",
      "direction": "out",
      "name": "myQueue",
      "queueName": "my-queue",
      "connection": "QueueConnectionString"

And the TypeScript:

interface InputFunctionContext extends Context {
    bindings: {
        myQueue: string[]

    res: {
        status?: number
        body: string

const httpTrigger: AzureFunction = async function (context: InputFunctionContext, req: InputHttpRequest): Promise<void> {
    // function code

Both bindings and res have a default type of { [key: string] : any } denoting that they can have as many properties and they are untyped, but we know from our function.json what they should be and we can set them accordingly.

You can do the same with input bindings such as Table and type them to the class that they are within your application normally.


From what starts out as a very loosely typed design with TypeScript Azure Functions you can easily leverage type extending to make your function code more aware of the bindings and the types that they should represent.

I’ve created a full working example on GitHub if you’d like to play with it yourself.


Editor guide