-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add default tsconfig.json #12
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
generated with tsc --init (tsc Version 3.9.5)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Besides the comments, everything else looks good to me:)
// "incremental": true, /* Enable incremental compilation */ | ||
"target": "es5", /* Specify ECMAScript target version: 'ES3' (default), 'ES5', 'ES2015', 'ES2016', 'ES2017', 'ES2018', 'ES2019', 'ES2020', or 'ESNEXT'. */ | ||
"module": "commonjs", /* Specify module code generation: 'none', 'commonjs', 'amd', 'system', 'umd', 'es2015', 'es2020', or 'ESNext'. */ | ||
// "lib": [], /* Specify library files to be included in the compilation. */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we include some default libs here, or manage this in our boilerplates? e.g.:
"esnext",
"dom"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Probably makes sense to have some defaults here. I can imagine not using "dom" when writing libraries, but does having it anyway have any downside?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So we have 2 options:
- leave this default, and require projects/boilerplates to set this explicitly (opt-in)
- include
esnext
,dom
to be future-compatible for most of our use cases, and allow projects to change or opt-out of this setting (opt-out)
Including more by default can only do harm of a project doesn't include all the polyfills for the given version, and developer uses it without testing their code.
But this could also happen if we include es2019
if we need some of the features, but haven't included polyfills for all of them.
Using esnext
here means we don't have to update it every year, and kan keep using the newest features combined with babel-preset-env in our projects.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like the 'opt-out' option, but I would suggest the following list:
"ESNext",
"DOM",
"DOM.Iterable",
"ScriptHost",
"ESNext.AsyncIterable"
// "paths": {}, /* A series of entries which re-map imports to lookup locations relative to the 'baseUrl'. */ | ||
// "rootDirs": [], /* List of root folders whose combined content represents the structure of the project at runtime. */ | ||
// "typeRoots": [], /* List of folders to include type definitions from. */ | ||
// "types": [], /* Type declaration files to be included in compilation. */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
More often than not, I have to explicitly specify types here, since the default will include everything in the @types
module folder.
Including everything often gives conflicts due to packages (mostly build-tools) having other types installed as sub-dependencies, that rely on the node environment instead of the web environment.
Not sure if there is something we can do in this file, but maybe some documentation about this common use case could be beneficial.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can put this file in a directory with a default type declaration file, and a .md for documentation if needed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can put this file in a directory with a default type declaration file
What do you mean by this? :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That quote I thought you meant adding a .d.ts file, but now I see it's about adding a list that would be tied to a project's dependencies. Correct?
That issue is annoying and I didn't know manually including stuff was the solution. So is there any other way between types
and typeRoots
to prevent that? Maybe if we identify which common libs we use tend to screw things up that would be a middle ground? Or is this a declare everything vs include everything kind of deal?
I think that we don't need a default So I would much rather have |
That's something that should definitely happen.
I think the main reason for this is "documentation" purposes (and) as a starting point for any other project/library/skeleton that we create. Maybe instead of a file, we could make it a markdown page, that includes:
And for the bottom 2, an explanation for why we dictate or advise these settings, to serve as documentation. |
Do we still need this PR? The |
This uses the default tsconfig.json generated with tsc --init (tsc Version 3.9.5).
Only change from that right now is adding
"importsNotUsedAsValues": "error"