Type Definition Files #43
Conversation
|
@phreed this looks interesting, I'll get back to you. |
|
@phreed OK I checked with some folks at Cognitect, we are interested in this - the only caveat being we expect this definitions to be kept up-to-date by the community. The other thing is that we'll need a CA in order to merge this PR. |
|
OK |
|
@phreed sorry by CA, I meant Contributor Agreement. We'll need you to sign this in order to take a PR https://secure.echosign.com/public/hostedForm?formid=8JU33Z7A7JX84U |
|
I believe you now have a signed Contributor Agreement from me. |
|
I have still not been able to fully test these changes. |
|
@phreed sorry about that I will update the project later this week so myself and others can build properly again. To your earlier question "community" is anyone outside Cognitect and no, there's no reason to partition this and other such contributions into a particular place that I can see at this time. Yes, community contributions can flow in via additional PRs. |
|
Sounds good. |
|
@phreed What's the status for this PR? I'd love to see this get in and released this year. I was about to start writing a DefinitelyTyped PR to bridge the gap if necessary. |
|
FWIW, happy to help push this along. I did update the build scripts. |
|
@mattbishop actually my bad, @phreed did point out something for me to do in the issue. Need to look into that. |
|
I am think it is ready, there is an issue with testing but for my
application they work well.
…On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:52 PM David Nolen ***@***.***> wrote:
@mattbishop <https://github.com/mattbishop> actually my bad, @phreed
<https://github.com/phreed> did point out something for me to do in the
issue. Need to look into that.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#43 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAM6vMZpshG9AsrufkHKwMtmD1K1omaKks5sdzkRgaJpZM4M5XeC>
.
|
|
@phreed what do you mean by "issue with testing"? Are you unclear what acceptable levels of testing are for definition files? |
|
@mattbishop I could not run the full test suite on my machine. The definition files passed their tests. I communicated with @swannodette on the subject (at the time). It had something to do with an a google closure library that was not present in the node.js context. It has been a while now so the details are a bit hazy. |
|
I'm wondering if these TS definitions are better served over on DefinitelyTyped? I know they prefer the library authors house the definitions but I don't know if that makes sense here given how long it takes to get changes merged. If/when we find a bug in the definition, DefinitelyTyped has a fast change process that rolls out new releases quickly. |
|
Opened up a PR against DefinitelyTyped here to add transit-js, if anyone would like to review: https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped/pull/60660/files |
|
Types are now available as |
#42
Javascript, being a dynamic language, makes few accommodations for a formal specification.
Two options are generally provided: jsdoc, TypeScript typings.
Integrated development environments provide code-completion (IntelliSense) based on these two specification forms.
This pull request provides TypeScript typings for transit-js.
This does a few things:
extends the specification of the API with exactly those things needed by most code-completion mechanisms
makes using transit-js in TypeScript projects easier
does not interfere with projects that do not care about using types
provides a single place for the formal definition of the API
Caveat:
The typings are not complete.
I was not able to test properly as I was not able to build transit-js.
$ bin/build_release_node
Error: Unable to access jarfile deps/closure-compiler/compiler.jar