Conversation
typescript-bot
added
New Definition
|
@rbuckton Thank you for submitting this PR! Because this is a new definition, a DefinitelyTyped maintainer will be reviewing this PR in the next few days once the Travis CI build passes. In the meantime, if the build fails or a merge conflict occurs, I'll let you know. Have a nice day! |
| export function puts(...param: any[]): void; | ||
| /** @deprecated since v0.11.3 - use `console.log()` instead. */ | ||
| export function print(...param: any[]): void; | ||
| /** @deprecated since v0.11.3 - use a third party module instead. */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wait, log isn't console.log?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, it wraps console.log and adds a timestamp. However, it's a soft deprecation (no runtime warning), but its marked "deprecated" in the docs.
typescript-bot
added
The Travis CI build failed
and removed
Awaiting reviewer feedback
labels
|
@rbuckton The Travis CI build failed! Please review the logs for more information. Once you've pushed the fixes, the build will automatically re-run. Thanks! |
|
You've run into the same problem I've run into on #25263, a bunch of broken definitions elsewhere in the tree. |
|
@rbuckton The Travis CI build failed! Please review the logs for more information. Once you've pushed the fixes, the build will automatically re-run. Thanks! |
typescript-bot
added
Awaiting reviewer feedback
and removed
The Travis CI build failed
labels
typescript-bot
added
The Travis CI build failed
and removed
Awaiting reviewer feedback
labels
|
It looks like the large number of packages depending on |
|
Is there a timeout we can increase temporarily? |
ghost
mentioned this pull request
|
This may be due to a recent types-publisher change and not to the number of packages -- see microsoft/types-publisher#452 UPDATE: Looks like that was it, tests pass now. |
typescript-bot
added
Awaiting reviewer feedback
and removed
The Travis CI build failed
labels
|
👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 |
| username: string; | ||
| toString(): string; | ||
| toJSON(): string; | ||
| global { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Question just for interest: what is the reason to move this into global here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm working on build failures caused by 10.0.0 being pulled in as a transitive dependency and I wonder whether the decision to move these definitions into the global namespace is causing the collision here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was definitely made a global because node now places it into the global scope (which is problematic if node is in the same compilation as the dom lib), this really needs microsoft/TypeScript#15780 (and for the URL constructor to be in its own lib) for it to be handled well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@weswigham I'm apprehensive that even microsoft/TypeScript#15780 will help since the WHATWG URL implementation has a subtly different API surface in the DOM vs. NodeJS. Rather, I think this will necessitate switching the definition of URL and URLSearchParams in DOM to use the same split interface (instance vs. constructor) approach we use for Object, Number, etc. so that the declarations can merge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm reverting this specific change in #25356 for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this same type of problem exists for setTimeout.
The implementation is subtly different in the DOM vs Node.js, specifically the return type. https://nodejs.org/dist/latest-v10.x/docs/api/timers.html
Somehow TypeScript is able to handle this scenario, right?
8 participants
If changing an existing definition:
This adds support for "fs/promises" as well as a number of new additions, soft deprecations, and outright removals.