@jsone-studios Thank you for submitting this PR!

This is a live comment which I will keep updated.

This PR doesn't modify any tests, so it's hard to know what's being fixed, and your changes might regress in the future. Have you considered adding tests to cover the change you're making? Including tests allows this PR to be merged by yourself and the owners of this module. This can potentially save days of time for you.

1 package in this PR

• express-serve-static-core on npm, on unpkg
  • owner-approval: @dwrss

Code Reviews

This PR can be merged once it's reviewed.

Status

• ✅ No merge conflicts
• ✅ Continuous integration tests have passed
• ✅ Most recent commit is approved by type definition owners or DT maintainers

All of the items on the list are green. To merge, you need to post a comment including the string "Ready to merge" to bring in your changes.

{
  "type": "info",
  "now": "-",
  "pr_number": 49677,
  "author": "jsone-studios",
  "headCommitAbbrOid": "1f898c8",
  "headCommitOid": "1f898c876e2751345fdce3630c4f5f890337e8e9",
  "stalenessInDays": 0,
  "lastPushDate": "2020-11-19T09:22:11.000Z",
  "lastCommentDate": "2020-11-23T20:43:30.000Z",
  "maintainerBlessed": true,
  "mergeOfferDate": "2020-11-23T20:41:25.000Z",
  "mergeRequestDate": "2020-11-23T20:43:30.000Z",
  "mergeRequestUser": "dwrss",
  "hasMergeConflict": false,
  "isFirstContribution": false,
  "popularityLevel": "Critical",
  "pkgInfo": [
    {
      "name": "express-serve-static-core",
      "kind": "edit",
      "files": [
        {
          "path": "types/express-serve-static-core/index.d.ts",
          "kind": "definition"
        }
      ],
      "owners": [
        "borisyankov",
        "19majkel94",
        "kacepe",
        "micksatana",
        "samijaber",
        "JoseLion",
        "dwrss",
        "andoshin11"
      ],
      "addedOwners": [],
      "deletedOwners": [],
      "popularityLevel": "Critical"
    }
  ],
  "reviews": [
    {
      "type": "approved",
      "reviewer": "dwrss",
      "date": "2020-11-21T15:03:02.000Z",
      "isMaintainer": false
    }
  ],
  "ciResult": "pass"
}

🔔 @borisyankov @19majkel94 @kacepe @micksatana @samijaber @JoseLion @dwrss @andoshin11 — please review this PR in the next few days. Be sure to explicitly select Approve or Request Changes in the GitHub UI so I know what's going on.

👋 Hi there! I’ve run some quick measurements against master and your PR. These metrics should help the humans reviewing this PR gauge whether it might negatively affect compile times or editor responsiveness for users who install these typings.

Let’s review the numbers, shall we?

It looks like nothing changed too much. I won’t post performance data again unless it gets worse.

@jsone-studios Everything looks good here. Great job! I am ready to merge this PR (at 1f898c8) on your behalf.

If you'd like that to happen, please post a comment saying:

Ready to merge

and I'll merge this PR almost instantly. Thanks for helping out! ❤️

(@borisyankov, @19majkel94, @kacepe, @micksatana, @samijaber, @JoseLion, @dwrss, @andoshin11: you can do this too.)

Ready to merge

I just published @types/[email protected] to npm.

@jsone-studios @dwrss I am running in to expressjs/express#4467

So how should I bypass the type check with this PR?

My opinion is that the return type should be void | Promise<void>.

Could you fix it? @jsone-studios

So how should I bypass the type check with this PR?

You should not bypass the type check. You must handle the case when getManifest() is returning a rejected promise, otherwise you risk that your request stays open unanswered and in the future, your NodeJS process will terminate because of an unhandled promise rejection.

You can add an explicit .catch(...) handler to the returned promise

app.get("/manifest.webmanifest", (_req, res) => {
  getManifest(pwaOptions)
    .then(result => res.send(result))
    .catch(error => res.status(500).send('Unexpected error'))
});

or use the express-async-handler or the express-async-router library.

Thanks for the answer❤