feat: add @types/eslint peer dependency #106
Conversation
|
Switching to draft until we resolve #104 |
|
@danielrentz can you please sign the CLA? |
|
done |
danielrentz
changed the title
danielrentz
changed the title
packages/compat/package.json
Outdated
| @@ -55,6 +55,14 @@ | |||
| "rollup": "^4.16.2", | |||
| "typescript": "^5.4.5" | |||
| }, | |||
| "peerDependencies": { | |||
| "@types/eslint": "^9.6.0" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now that the eslint package itself publishes its own types (eslint/eslint#18854), @types/eslint is no longer necessary in general. I'd assumed the plan was to turn it into a stub type definition per normal DefinitelyTyped practices. Should this be switched to "eslint", along with the meta lower on?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd assumed the plan was to turn it into a stub type definition per normal DefinitelyTyped practices.
We don't know normal DefiniteTyped practices. 😄 Can you open an issue somewhere for this task explaining what it is?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great, per eslint/eslint#18928 (comment) I'll mark this as needing to switch from @types/eslint to eslint. Thanks @snitin315!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
switched to eslint ^9.10.0 (first version with bundled typings)
@nzakas @JoshuaKGoldberg Question: Should the "optional" be removed? (Can this package be used without eslint?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think optional can stay. This package doesn't use eslint at runtime, only at dev time to validate types. @JoshuaKGoldberg?
|
We should update |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. Would like @JoshuaKGoldberg to verify before merging.
Prerequisites checklist
What is the purpose of this pull request?
This package exports TS type definitions referring to eslint types, thus it should publicly include the
@types/eslintpackage.What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
In packages/compat/package.json, move "@types/eslint" to "dependencies".
Related Issues
fixes #105
Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?