New TypeScript typings#93
Conversation
|
Hello! Thanks for taking the time to create a PR. I am not so familiar with TypeScript, but I am open to including these definitions in the project. Are there any best-practices from TypeScript-land for testing / validating the type definitions (e.g for completeness and/or correctness)?
The class syntax is es6. This project is strictly es5 at the moment. I prefer not to mix the two. |
I don't know of any, but I'm sure projects like DefinitelyTyped have some testing method. I'll look into it. I also have some additional questions for you:
|
|
To make sure these definitions stay compatibly with |
|
For anyone wanting to use these definitions already: I have published my fork as a separate package. |
|
@HoldYourWaffle What's the status on this? Have the upstreams merged your other PRs? |
|
|
|
Because |
|
Just to give a little status update, more than a year later this still hasn't been resolved. I have just created a second-attempt PR over at DT, hoping to finally get this fixed as soon as possible. |
|
DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped#46576 has finally been merged! |
2d99c49 to
8e62ca2
Compare

The current DefinitelyTyped typings are horribly out of date and frankly unusable. To fix this I created new typings, but since DefinitelyTyped is a mess and it's generally preferable to include typings directly in the package I'm creating the PR here.
The typings are not finished yet, there's still a lot of
anytypes (which basically means 'unknown' in case you're unfamiliar with TypeScript) and I'm not entirely confident I included all functions*.I was hoping you could help me with the remaining
anytypes and merge this, so that this library will be usable again in a TypeScript environment.* On a side note, why are you directly modifying the prototype instead of using the
classsyntax? I'm relatively new to JS (at least up from ES5), and as far as I can tell there isn't really a reason for doing this. Am I missing somethings? I'd love to learn!