There's really no need to get so defensive, this wasn't meant as an attack or anything like that. I saw a discrepancy and voiced concern. Just ignoring the question and just closing it wasn't the nice way.
There are many different ways to solve this issue. Which way is a good one highly depends on the existing code base and the stance of the team regarding this, and my knowledge about the code base is very little.
- Make the `name` property of the existing interface optional.
- Add a new interface with the `name` property optional for this case.
- Use a null-object if an empty name is valid (might cause issues at different locations when a non-empty string is expected).
- Do the workaround just as you did.