chore: add explicit "types" to tsconfig files#6758
Conversation
We use typescript v5 for compilation. However, sometimes external tooling like an IDE will, by default, use the latest TS version for editor support (like "squigglies" for lint/problems). This is the case for VS Code and TS v6. TS v6 changed the "types" tsconfig setting to default to `[]`. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/announcing-typescript-6-0/#types-now-defaults-to-[] It previously defaulted to "enumerate everything in node_modules/@types". As (mild) preparation for eventually migrating to TS v6 and to be nice to developers whose IDE or other tool defaults to using TS v6, let's explicitly list our "types". I don't believe there is a downside to this, other than needing to add "types" entries as usage changes.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #6758 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 94.78% 94.95% +0.17%
==========================================
Files 374 377 +3
Lines 12439 12743 +304
Branches 2841 2896 +55
==========================================
+ Hits 11790 12100 +310
+ Misses 649 643 -6 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
This is what I'm referring to: 
This is, of course, configurable -- at least in VS Code via the Or we could add .vscode/settings.json to the repo... but I don't particularly want to go there. |
We use typescript v5 for compilation. However, sometimes external
tooling like an IDE will, by default, use the latest TS version for
editor support (like "squigglies" for lint/problems). This is the
case for VS Code and TS v6.
TS v6 changed the "types" tsconfig setting to default to
[].https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/announcing-typescript-6-0/#types-now-defaults-to-[]
It previously defaulted to "enumerate everything in node_modules/@types".
As (mild) preparation for eventually migrating to TS v6 and
to be nice to developers whose IDE or other tool defaults to using TS
v6, let's explicitly list our "types".
I don't believe there is a downside to this, other than needing
to add "types" entries as usage changes.