Move all @types dependencies to devDependencies #479
Conversation
|
Please search and read the dozen existing issues and PRs first. |
|
If you have a specific issue, please report it first or at least mention what the issue is in the PR. As it is I'd prefer to see any issues you have, fixed in DefinitelyTyped or TypeScript or wherever your particular one is coming from. Without mentioning it to those particular parties, how will anyone ever fix your issue permanently? |
|
I searched all existing issues and PRs and did not find relevant issues. There was no existing issue for this PR, as it seemed a simple metadata fix I assumed submitting a PR would double for submitting an issue. On re-evaluation I realize my mistake in thinking this was a simple fix, however your comments aren't particularly helpful to diagnosing my mistaken assumption. At the time I submitted the PR, I thought I had included enough information in the PR description to note what the issue I was having was (my project doesn't use any of the dependencies of typedocs itself and depends on typedocs only as a devDependency, but fails to build because it's getting types that it doesn't need; this may be more a failure of the npm model than DT or TS where I would like my devDependencies segregated further from my actual dependencies...) Finally, if you would like issues to be filed before PRs, I suggest adding a |
|
@WorldMaker You're right that it seems like a simple fix but we've already had several PRs and extended discussions in several issues, especially #384 and #350 about this particular issue which is why @blakeembrey suggested adding more info. If you dig into those threads you'll see the reasoning but it is more complicated than I'd like to try to sum up in a comment every time this comes up 😫 Most of the issues are caused by bad DefinitelyTyped definitions so in #350 (comment) it was suggested that someone pin down the |
|
Thanks @aciccarello. Yeah, it's frustrating on all sides when simple things turn out to be much more complicated than at first glance and the searches you thought you needed to try were the wrong searches because you were missing the right perspective on the problem. |
|
You should be able to find existing issues/PRs using https://github.com/TypeStrong/typedoc/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=types%20dependencies. Make sure you searched for closed issues/PRs, not just open ones - I know GitHub defaults to open only (for god knows what reason). Can you please share what about your build is failing? I understand that it's failing, but it's really not enough context to help you or point the issue in the right direction. When you say it's included in your build, only global type definitions under |
|
I see you did find microsoft/TypeScript#11917, which I suspected might be the issue you ended up hitting. I've been pretty vocal about trying to avoid the mistake of automatically including globals where they don't belong (that issue and microsoft/types-publisher#107 (side note: maybe I should remove the question mark in title to make it less questiony), plus many others). I'm sorry this has hit you, but I'm try my best to make sure we can ask for the correct fixes in TypeScript instead of impacting every module author. |
|
Yeah, I get it a lot better now, Blake. Between two developers on two machines we had three different problems with the lodash globals. Pinning |
|
For now explicitly listing only the types we do need in the tsconfig works and it's better than my co-developers approach of commenting out the lodash globals section every time npm reinstalled it. |
|
Also found DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped#15331 |
I've been seeing "bleedover" issues with @types dependencies installed by typedoc. (In my particular case, it's with
@types/lodashnot compiling in my projects for various reasons.) Beyond my specific issues, it seems like a good idea to try to avoid contaminating downstream users of typedoc with extra typings they aren't expecting.