# Force code to convert as "Javascript blocks"

**URL:** <https://forum.makecode.com/t/force-code-to-convert-as-javascript-blocks/18107>\
**Category:** Arcade\
**Tags:** javascript\
**Created:** [February 21, 2023, 10:53pm UTC](https://forum.makecode.com/t/force-code-to-convert-as-javascript-blocks/18107 "2023-02-21T22:53:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JorginLegal](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.makecode.com/jorginlegal/32/7262_2.png) [@JorginLegal](https://forum.makecode.com/u/JorginLegal)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2023, 10:53pm UTC](https://forum.makecode.com/t/force-code-to-convert-as-javascript-blocks/18107/1 "2023-02-21T22:53:28Z")

</div>

There is this really annoying bug in the block editor that makes it so you have to alter arrays’ assignment from whatever it automatically converted to to `any[]` _every time_ you do anything in blocks.

While ideally the bug should be fixed, i was wondering if, as a all conversion issues before they’re fixed, there would be a way to force code to convert into the Javascript blocks you see when you do something without a block equivalent.

Is this possible?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sarge](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.makecode.com/sarge/32/19590_2.png) [@Sarge](https://forum.makecode.com/u/Sarge)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 6:03pm UTC](https://forum.makecode.com/t/force-code-to-convert-as-javascript-blocks/18107/2 "2023-02-24T18:03:58Z")

</div>

The MakeCode team reimplemented this some time ago i belive since in 99% of cases you actually want to convert to blocks instead. For the average user, it can be really annoying! For now i don’t think there’s a viable way but @richard mentioned working on adapting dynamic types in blocks too!

> [@Anyone know how to join two arrays together?](https://forum.makecode.com/t/anyone-know-how-to-join-two-arrays-together/17660/18):
>
> generic types do not have the best support right now. can you give me a link to your code, though @Sarge? i would love to have it as a test case if we ever go improve this.
