Jest-puppeteer: Bundle TypeScript definitions
馃殌 Feature Proposal
add bundle TypeScript definitions
see https://github.com/smooth-code/jest-puppeteer/issues/221
xiaoyuhen
All 5 comments
There are already TS definitions for jest-puppeteer, but in a separate package: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@types/jest-environment-puppeteer
If you want to bundle them, it would make sense to ping the original author @JoshuaKGoldberg first.
lukaszfiszer
on 15 Apr 2019
Hi! It's often not a good idea to bundle type definitions with a package if the package's author(s) don't write it in TypeScript already. Definitions get out of date easily and being tied into the package's release cycle can slow down updates. Keeping them on DefinitelyTyped means we get the automated process & crowdsourced reviews of that repository.
JoshuaKGoldberg
on 15 Apr 2019
Questions for author @JoshuaKGoldberg , since there is major update in the js version (e.g.: include visibility option in .toMatchElement function), would there be any update in the Typescript definition too? thank you!
becky26
on 10 May 2019
We will not bundle types in this library, I am not a TypeScript expert and I don't want to deal with TypeScript issues. It is better to have them in a separated repository maintained by the TypeScript community.
gregberge
on 10 May 2019
@becky26 feel free to file an issue on DefinitelyTyped: https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped
It's always accepting PRs for updates to libraries
JoshuaKGoldberg
on 10 May 2019
Related issues
joshpitzalis
路
3Comments
Greg-oliver99
路
4Comments
Pyrolistical
路
6Comments
dptoot
路
4Comments
igneel64
路
5Comments
Most helpful comment
Hi! It's often not a good idea to bundle type definitions with a package if the package's author(s) don't write it in TypeScript already. Definitions get out of date easily and being tied into the package's release cycle can slow down updates. Keeping them on DefinitelyTyped means we get the automated process & crowdsourced reviews of that repository.