I have been satisfied with JSDoc for typing over full TypeScript for a while due to being able to do pretty much anything TypeScript can do. Especially when importing from a .ts file is also possible.
However, the following issue around referencing and building types from npm packages has become too much of an issue and waste of time to work around that I can only recommend full TypeScript at this point.
I have included the AI conversation I had to try and resolve this, but the solution in the end is really to just use TypeScript instead.
When I try to use JSDoc types from a file in a library I installed locally via npm, it does not work(in VSCode). Is there no way to get this working?
I’m here to help you get those JSDoc types working in VS Code!
Here are the approaches you can take:
1. Check for Type Declaration Files (.d.ts):
If the library includes .d.ts files, VS Code should automatically recognize the types.
If not, proceed to the next steps.
2. Generate Type Declaration Files:
If the library doesn’t have .d.ts files, you can generate them:
Use tools like dts-gen or api-extractor to create them from the library’s source code or JSDoc comments.
3. Reference Types Directly:
If you know the specific types you need, reference them directly in your code:
JavaScript
/**
* @param {LibraryName.Type}param - Description of the parameter
*/functionmyFunction(param) {
// ...
}
4. Manually Create a Declaration File:
If the above options aren’t feasible, create a .d.ts file manually:
TypeScript
declaremodule'library-name' {
// Define the types here
}
5. Configure VS Code:
Check JSDoc support: Ensure “JavaScript and TypeScript: Use JSDoc for IntelliSense” is enabled in VS Code settings.
Include additional type roots: If the library types are outside your project, add the path to jsconfig.json or tsconfig.json:
Check for syntax errors: Make sure your JSDoc comments are correct.
Restart VS Code: Sometimes a restart fixes type recognition issues.
Update extensions: Keep VS Code and related extensions updated.
If you continue to face issues, please provide more details about:
The specific library you’re using
Your project setup
Any error messages you’re encountering
I’ll offer more tailored guidance based on the specific context.
know I can convert to ts, but what about when keeping as JSDoc?
While TypeScript offers superior type safety and integration with VS Code, there are ways to use JSDoc for type definitions in your project even if you prefer to remain in JavaScript:
1. Consider the Approaches Mentioned Previously:
Check for existing type declaration files: If the library provides them, VS Code should recognize the types automatically.
Manually create a type declaration file: This method requires writing a separate .d.ts file to define the types for the library (explained earlier).
Reference types directly: If you know the specific types you need, reference them directly in your code using JSDoc annotations (also explained previously).
2. Ensure JSDoc Support in VS Code:
Go to Settings (or Preferences on macOS) and search for “JavaScript and TypeScript: Use JSDoc for IntelliSense.” Make sure it’s checked.
This enables VS Code to use JSDoc comments for type information.
3. Address Limitations:
Limited IntelliSense: Compared to TypeScript, JSDoc offers less comprehensive IntelliSense. You might encounter scenarios where the code completion or type checking is less robust.
Manual Maintenance: Manually maintaining JSDoc comments and ensuring their accuracy can be more work compared to the type checking offered by TypeScript.
In conclusion, while using JSDoc is still an option for type definitions in JavaScript projects, it’s important to be aware of its limitations and potential drawbacks compared to TypeScript. Consider these factors when deciding which approach best suits your project needs and preferences.
It seems VSCode settings do not help and that I need to generate .d.ts files. How can I generate .d.ts file into the library in node_modules.
It’s important to understand that modifying files directly within node_modules is generally not recommended. This directory is managed by npm and changes made to it could be overwritten during future package updates.
Instead, consider the following approaches for generating type declarations without modifying the library in node_modules:
1. Use a Dedicated Folder:
Create a separate folder within your project, for example, typings.
Use a tool like dts-gen or api-extractor to generate the .d.ts files in this folder.
Configure your project (e.g., in tsconfig.json) to include this folder as a source for type definitions:
I am trying to use tsc in the cli on files in node_modules. Are files in node_modules excluded by default? What should I do?
Yes, files in the node_modules directory are excluded by default when using the tsc compiler in the CLI. This is because the node_modules folder typically contains third-party libraries written in JavaScript, which don’t require type checking by the TypeScript compiler.
Here are your options to include files from node_modules:
1. Not Recommended:
Directly including node_modules: While technically possible to include the entire node_modules directory in your compilation, it’s strongly discouraged. This can significantly slow down compilation due to the large number of files and potential conflicts with your own project’s code.
2. Recommended approach:
Use type definitions: Most popular libraries in node_modules have corresponding type definition packages available on npm (https://www.npmjs.com/). These packages usually start with the @types prefix, followed by the library name (e.g., @types/express). Install the relevant type definition package using npm install @types/<library-name>. This provides type information for the library without including the actual source code.
3. Specific file inclusion (for rare cases):
In rare cases, you might need to include specific files from node_modules. While not ideal, you can achieve this by using the --include flag with tsc. However, this should be used with caution, as it can potentially introduce conflicts and dependencies on the external library’s implementation details.
Remember, the best practice is to leverage type definitions whenever possible. They provide type information without unnecessary compilation overhead and maintain a clear separation between your project code and external libraries.
For the command I am using there is little reason to have excluded directories, how can I remove all excluded directories from the settings in tsc cli? No tsconfig.json please.
While you can’t directly remove excluded directories from the CLI, you can achieve a similar effect using the --noResolve flag.
Here’s how to compile a file without any exclusion logic:
Bash
tsc --noResolve your_file.ts
Key points:
--noResolve tells the compiler to not perform module resolution, meaning it won’t consider any exclusion patterns or include directives.
It’ll only compile the specified file(s) directly.
It’s crucial to note that --noResolve has broader implications:
No module resolution: References to other modules won’t be resolved, potentially leading to errors if your code depends on external modules.
No type checking from included files: Type information from other files won’t be considered, potentially affecting type checking accuracy.
To include specific files:
If you need to include files from excluded directories like node_modules, use the --include flag:
If I have generated only typescript type declaration files from a project that am I importing, how can I make the types work? The types do not seem to include any mention of the package name so I assume some form of mapping would be required.
You’re correct that simply importing declaration files (.d.ts files) wouldn’t automatically work with your project unless they are properly configured. Here’s what you need to do to make the types work:
1. Mapping with tsconfig.json:
Locate your tsconfig.json file: This is the configuration file for your TypeScript compiler.
Add the compilerOptions property: Under this property, add "baseUrl" and "paths" options.
Set baseUrl: This option specifies the base directory where the compiler should start resolving modules. Set it to the directory containing the imported type declaration files.
Set paths: This option maps module names to their corresponding file paths. Define a mapping for the package you’re importing. Here’s the syntax:
Even with the mapping, the imported types might not have the same names as in the original package. To address this:
Define type aliases in your own code for the imported types. This allows you to use familiar names for the types while still benefiting from type safety.
Example:
Assuming you’re importing a package named my-package:
tsconfig.json:
JSON
{
"compilerOptions": {
"baseUrl": "src/types", // Assuming your types are in a "types" folder"paths": {
"my-package/*": ["../node_modules/my-package/*.d.ts"]
}
}
}
Your code:
TypeScript
// Assuming the type declaration defines an interface called "MyComponent"importtype { MyComponent } from"my-package";
// Define type aliastype MyCustomComponent = MyComponent;
// Use the alias like any other typeconst myComponent: MyCustomComponent = { /* ... */ };
In TypeScript, how can I reference the value being extended for a generic on a type? For example, if I have type MyType<T extends string> = Record<T, number>; , how could I reference the “string” being extended for the generic T?
While you can’t directly reference the exact value being extended within a generic type declaration, here are several effective approaches to achieve similar goals:
1. Conditional Types:
Employ conditional types to constrain type behavior based on the generic’s relationship to the extended type.
TypeScript
type MyType<T extendsstring> = {
[P in T]: number;
isString: T extendsstring ? true : false; // Leverage conditional type
};
const myObject: MyType<"name" | "age"> = {
name: 42,
age: 30,
isString: true, // Correctly infers as true
};
2. Type Inference and Utility Types:
Utilize type inference and built-in utility types to derive information about the generic.
TypeScript
type InstanceType<T> = T extends infer U ? U : never;
type Stringified<T extendsstring> = InstanceType<T>; // Extract string typeconst myString: Stringified<MyType<"name" | "age">> = "name"; // Correctly infers as string
3. Type Parameters and Constraints:
Define additional type parameters with constraints for more control and flexibility.
TypeScript
type MyType2<T extendsstring, U extends T = T> = Record<U, number>;
const myObject2: MyType2<"name" | "age"> = {
name: 42, // T is inferred as "name" | "age"age: 30,
};
Remember:
These techniques offer ways to work with generic type relationships without direct value access.
Choose the approach that best aligns with your specific use case and constraints.
For more complex scenarios, consider combining these techniques or exploring advanced TypeScript features.
None of those solutions get the type of the generic being extended. Are there no real solutions?
You’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, TypeScript currently lacks a mechanism to directly retrieve the exact type value being used for extension within a generic type definition. The methods presented earlier provide alternative approaches to achieve similar goals and leverage type information, but they don’t capture the precise extended value.
There are ongoing discussions and proposals for introducing “higher-kinded types” in future TypeScript versions, which could potentially enable direct access to the extended type value. However, this feature is not yet available, and it’s unclear when or if it will be implemented.
For now, the best course of action is to adopt one of the previously mentioned strategies that best suits your specific requirements and consider refactoring your code if necessary to avoid relying on directly accessing the extended type value.
In React Hook Form, when a form has errors in it, it won’t emit the submit event normally.
However, sometimes it is important to manually handle form validity such as when using validation information from a server.
In that case, it is possible to manually handle the validation via the “mode” property of useForm options by setting it to “onChange”. An example below shows how to do this.
// tsx
import { DOMAttributes } from ‘react’;
import { FormProvider, useForm } from ‘react-hook-form’;
In React Hook Form, it is a little confusing how to separate multiple input areas in a page.
For example, there may be multiple forms, inputs in completely different areas of the page, modals opening from different triggers, etc.
If you check the Dev Tools, you might see warnings when a form tag is used inside another form tag. It seems using form tags is a bit risky for pages with complex input layouts.
I asked Gemini AI about these issues, and have documented the responses below:
Is it ok to create a react-hook-form using useForm with the FormProvider and then in a nested component create another useForm?
Generally, it’s not recommended to create nested useForm instances within a FormProvider in React Hook Form.
Here’s why:
Unnecessary Complexity: A single useForm instance, combined with FormProvider and useFormContext, is usually sufficient to manage complex forms. Creating nested useForm instances can introduce unnecessary complexity and potential issues with form state management.
Potential Conflicts: Multiple useForm instances might lead to conflicts in form data and validation. It can be difficult to manage and track the state of different form sections independently.
Performance Implications: Creating multiple useForm instances might impact performance, especially for larger forms with many fields.
Recommended Approach:
Use a single useForm instance at the top level of your form component.
Employ FormProvider to provide form context to child components.
Utilize useFormContext within nested components to access form methods and data.
By following this structure, you can effectively manage your form’s state and behavior while maintaining clarity and efficiency.
Example:
JavaScript
import React from'react';
import { useForm, FormProvider, useFormContext } from'react-hook-form';
functionMyForm() {
const methods = useForm();
return (
<FormProvider {...methods}><formonSubmit={methods.handleSubmit(onSubmit)}>
{/* Main form fields */}
<NestedComponent />
{/* Other form elements */}
</form></FormProvider>
);
}
functionNestedComponent() {
const { control } = useFormContext();
// Access form methods and data using controlreturn (
<div>
{/* Nested form fields */}
</div>
);
}
In this example, useForm is used once at the top level, and useFormContext is employed within NestedComponent to access the shared form context.
Exceptions:
There might be specific use cases where creating nested useForm instances could be considered, but they should be carefully evaluated and approached with caution. For example, if you have highly independent form sections that need to be managed separately, you might explore this option, but it’s generally recommended to find alternative solutions first.
By following these guidelines, you can create well-structured and maintainable forms using React Hook Form.
However, as long as I use two different useForm return value references and do not use useFormContext for the nested useForm data, it should be ok?
Using Separate useForm Instances: A Cautious Approach
Yes, technically, you can use two different useForm instances without useFormContext for nested forms. This approach can work under certain conditions, but it’s generally not recommended due to potential complexities and limitations.
Potential Issues and Considerations:
Isolated Form States: Each useForm instance manages its own form data and validation independently. This can make it difficult to synchronize or interact between the two forms, especially if there’s a dependency between them.
Complex Data Management: Combining data from multiple forms can become challenging, especially if you need to perform calculations or validations across both forms.
Reduced Flexibility: You’ll miss out on the benefits of useFormContext, such as easily accessing form methods and data in nested components.
When it Might Be Acceptable:
Completely Independent Forms: If the two forms are truly unrelated and don’t share any data or logic, using separate useForm instances might be reasonable.
Specific Use Cases: There might be rare scenarios where this approach is justified, but it’s essential to carefully evaluate the trade-offs.
Recommended Approach:
In most cases, using a single useForm instance with FormProvider and useFormContext is the preferred method for managing nested forms. It offers better control, flexibility, and maintainability.
The problem I have is that the data is related, but is opened from a modal.
Understanding the Challenge: Related Data in a Modal
I understand the challenge. Having related data in a modal context often presents complexities in form management.
Potential Solutions:
Single useForm Instance with Shared State:
Centralized Data Management: Create a shared state (e.g., using React Context or a state management library) to store the related data.
Form Population: Populate the modal form with data from the shared state.
Data Updates: Update the shared state when changes are made in the modal form.
Benefits: Enforces data consistency and allows for complex interactions between the main form and the modal.
Drawbacks: Increased complexity due to state management.
Separate useForm Instances with Data Transfer:
Independent Forms: Create separate useForm instances for the main form and the modal.
Data Transfer: Pass the necessary data from the main form to the modal as props.
Data Updates: Handle data updates by passing updated data back to the parent component.
Benefits: Simpler form management, especially for loosely coupled forms.
Drawbacks: Potential for data inconsistencies if not handled carefully.
Custom Form Context:
Extended Context: Create a custom form context to share data and methods between the main form and the modal.
Data Management: Use the custom context to manage shared data and provide form-related functions.
Benefits: More flexibility than built-in useFormContext, allowing for custom logic.
Drawbacks: Increased complexity due to custom context implementation.
What does react-hook-form recommend?
React Hook Form Recommendations
React Hook Form generally recommends a single useForm instance for managing form data and validation within a component hierarchy. This approach provides better control, efficiency, and avoids potential issues with state management.
Here are some key recommendations from the React Hook Form documentation:
Core Concepts:
useForm: Create a single instance at the top level of your form component.
FormProvider: Provide form context to child components using FormProvider.
useFormContext: Access form methods and data in nested components using useFormContext.
Best Practices:
Default Values: Use the defaultValues prop in useForm to initialize form fields.
Validation: Employ built-in validation rules or custom validation functions for robust error handling.
Error Handling: Provide clear and informative error messages to users.
Accessibility: Ensure forms are accessible to users with disabilities by following accessibility guidelines.
TypeScript: Strongly consider using TypeScript for better type safety and code maintainability.
Specific Scenarios:
Nested Forms: While generally discouraged, if you must use nested forms, carefully evaluate the trade-offs and consider alternative approaches like shared state or custom context.
Complex Forms: For complex forms, explore advanced features like watch, unregister, and formState to manage form state effectively.
Performance Optimization: Optimize form performance by using techniques like debouncing, throttling, and lazy loading for large forms.
Even when modals are used?
React Hook Form and Modals: A Single useForm Instance is Preferred
Yes, even when using modals, React Hook Form generally recommends a single useForm instance. This approach provides several benefits:
Consistent state management: All form data is managed in a single place, making it easier to track and update values.
Efficient performance: A single instance can optimize rendering and re-renders.
Simplified code: You avoid the complexities of managing multiple form instances.
How to Handle Modals with a Single useForm Instance:
Create a single useForm instance at the top level of your component hierarchy.
Use FormProvider to provide form context to both your main form and the modal component.
Utilize useFormContext within the modal to access form methods and data.
Conditional rendering: Use conditional rendering to show or hide the modal based on a state variable.
Data flow: Pass necessary data from the main form to the modal as props or through shared state if needed.
Form submission: Handle form submission in the parent component to update the main form’s state if required.
Alternative Approaches:
While using a single useForm instance is generally recommended, there might be specific use cases where creating a separate useForm instance for the modal could be considered. However, carefully evaluate the trade-offs and potential complexities before choosing this approach.
So the modal needs to be in the DOM as a child of the form provider? Some libraries force adding to body.
Modal Placement and FormProvider: A Clarification
The placement of a modal within the DOM hierarchy relative to the FormProvider is generally not a critical factor for using React Hook Form effectively.
Key Points:
FormProvider’s Scope: The FormProvider creates a context that is accessible to its descendants. Whether the modal is a direct child or positioned elsewhere in the DOM tree doesn’t affect this context’s availability.
Modal Libraries: Some modal libraries append elements to the body for styling or accessibility purposes. This is an implementation detail of the library and doesn’t inherently conflict with React Hook Form.
Recommended Approach:
Create a single useForm instance at the top level of your component hierarchy.
Use FormProvider to wrap the main form and any components that need access to form context.
Place your modal component wherever it makes sense in your component structure. This could be a direct child of the FormProvider or a different part of the component tree.
Utilize useFormContext within the modal to access form methods and data.
Modal Library Specifics: If your modal library has particular requirements for positioning or context, refer to its documentation for guidance.
Performance Optimization: For complex forms or performance-critical applications, consider the impact of modal placement on rendering and re-renders.
Accessibility: Ensure that your modal and its content are accessible to users with disabilities.
By following these guidelines, you can effectively use React Hook Form with modals, regardless of their placement in the DOM.
So how can I add the modal to body tag while keeping it inside the FormProvider?
Using React Portals to Append Modal to Body While Keeping it Inside FormProvider
React Portals offer a solution to append a child component to a different part of the DOM while maintaining its relationship with the parent component. This is ideal for modals that often need to be rendered outside the main content area.
Steps:
Import createPortal from React:
JavaScript
import { createPortal } from'react-dom';
Create a reference to the body element:
JavaScript
const body = document.getElementById('root'); // Or your root element
Wrap the modal component in createPortal:
JavaScript
<FormProvider {...methods}>
{/* Main form */}
{isModalOpen && createPortal(
<ModalonClose={() => setIsModalOpen(false)}>
<ModalForm /></Modal>,
body
)}
</FormProvider>
This article provides information from Gemini AI regarding how to type React Hook Form form data.
The reasoning for this dialogue is due to there not being clear information about this, and the general loose typing that React Hook Form enforces.
The loose typing I talk about here is how using React Hook Form methods, types are made undefined or null even if the original type did not allow for this.
It seems that it is expected that fields may not be set, so handling of form data should take this into consideration, especially when submitting data.
Please see below for the AI dialogue with more details:
In react-hook-form, when submitting form data and using it for saving via an API, is it recommended to format the data?
It seems like it is easy to have an incorrect format of data due to how react-hook-form works.
Also, what type should I use for the useForm generic parameter to make sure the form data typing is loose enough to require proper checks and formatting?
Also should I trigger form submit with handleSubmit or trigger?
Formatting Form Data for API Submission with React Hook Form
Data Formatting: Absolutely Essential
Yes, it’s highly recommended to format your form data before sending it to the API.
React Hook Form provides a convenient way to manage form state, but it doesn’t inherently guarantee the data structure aligns perfectly with your API’s expectations. Common reasons for formatting include:
Data Type Conversion: Converting strings to numbers, dates, or other specific types.
Nested Data Structures: Transforming flat form data into nested objects or arrays.
API-Specific Formatting: Adhering to required formats like ISO 8601 dates, specific number formats, or custom data structures.
Data Validation: Implementing additional validation logic beyond what React Hook Form provides.
By formatting the data, you ensure data integrity and prevent potential API errors.
Generic Type for useForm
To maintain flexibility and accommodate potential data variations, consider using a generic type like any for the useForm parameter:
TypeScript
import { useForm } from'react-hook-form';
const MyForm = () => {
const { handleSubmit } = useForm<any>();
const onSubmit = (data) => {
// Format data hereconst formattedData = formatData(data);
// Send formatted data to API
api.post('/endpoint', formattedData);
};
return (
<formonSubmit={handleSubmit(onSubmit)}>
{/* Your form elements */}
</form>
);
};
While any might seem less type-safe, it allows you to handle various data structures without strict type constraints. You can implement custom validation and formatting logic to ensure data correctness.
Triggering Form Submission
Use handleSubmit for form submission.
This is the recommended approach as it provides several benefits:
Handles form submission events: Automatically prevents default form behavior.
Provides access to form data: Passes the form data to the onSubmit handler.
Supports form state management: Manages form state (e.g., isSubmitting, isValid) for better user experience.
JavaScript
const { handleSubmit } = useForm();
const onSubmit = (data) => {
// ...
};
return (
<formonSubmit={handleSubmit(onSubmit)}>
{/* Your form elements */}
</form>
);
Avoid using trigger for form submission.
While trigger can be used to manually trigger validation, it’s not intended for submitting the form. Using handleSubmit is the standard and recommended way to handle form submissions.
Additional Considerations
Leverage TypeScript: If you’re using TypeScript, define custom types for your form data to improve type safety and code maintainability.
Create a separate formatting function: Extract data formatting logic into a reusable function for better code organization.
Consider a form library: Explore advanced form libraries like formik or yup for additional features and simplified data management.
By following these guidelines and carefully considering your specific requirements, you can effectively handle form data formatting and submission in React Hook Form.
Would you like to see a code example with data formatting and API submission?
any type seems a bit extreme. Is there another type I can use?
Refining the Generic Type in React Hook Form
You’re absolutely right. Using any as a generic type for useForm can be too permissive. Let’s explore more suitable options.
Understanding the Trade-off
The ideal type for useForm balances flexibility with type safety. We want to capture the general shape of the form data without being overly restrictive.
Potential Alternatives
Interface or Type Alias:
Define an interface or type alias to outline the expected shape of your form data.
The best option depends on your specific use case:
If you have a well-defined form structure, a specific interface is suitable.
If you expect varying form data, a partial type or generic interface offers more flexibility.
Consider using TypeScript’s conditional types for more complex scenarios.
Additional Considerations
Leverage TypeScript’s Utility Types: Explore utility types like Record, Partial, and Omit to create tailored types.
Consider Validation Libraries: Integrate validation libraries like Yup or Zod for robust type checking and data transformation.
Balance Type Safety and Flexibility: Strive for a good balance between type safety and accommodating potential data variations.
By carefully considering these factors, you can select the appropriate generic type for your React Hook Form and enhance your application’s type safety.
Would you like to provide more details about your form structure so I can suggest a more specific type?
I’m specifically talking about using types provided by react-hook-form where I can use and pass my expected form data as a parameter to it.
Understanding and Utilizing React Hook Form Types
React Hook Form’s Built-in Types
Unfortunately, React Hook Form doesn’t provide a direct way to specify the entire form data structure as a generic type. The primary focus of its type definitions is on individual field-level interactions and validation.
Recommended Approach: Custom Interface or Type Alias
To achieve the desired level of type safety and structure for your form data, creating a custom interface or type alias is the most effective method. This aligns with the general practice of defining data structures in TypeScript.
While not directly providing a structure, React Hook Form offers the FieldValues type which can be used as a base for your custom types. This provides some level of type safety and compatibility with the library.
Example:
TypeScript
import { FieldValues } from'react-hook-form';
interface MyFormData extends FieldValues {
// Additional properties specific to your formcustomField: string;
}
Key Points
Custom Types: Define clear and specific types for your form data.
FieldValues: Use FieldValues as a base for custom types if needed.
Type Safety: Prioritize type safety to catch potential errors early.
Flexibility: Consider using optional properties or generic types for dynamic form structures.
The following is an AI chat conversation regarding the topic stated in the title.
Depending on the quality of the conversation, modifications may have been made. Modifications may or may not be stated in this page.
Why do I need to generate a declaration file for a javascript library in order to get type hinting in VSCode when I use that library in another project? VSCode can already get types of JS file in the same project. So why does this change when importing from an external library?
Here’s a breakdown of why declaration files are required for type hinting in VSCode when using external JavaScript libraries:
1. JavaScript’s Dynamic Nature:
JavaScript is dynamically typed, meaning type information isn’t explicitly included in the code itself. This flexibility makes it harder for editors to infer types accurately, especially for external code.
2. VSCode’s Type Hinting Reliance:
VSCode heavily relies on type information for features like:
IntelliSense (code completion, suggestions)
Hover information
Parameter and type checking
Refactoring tools
3. Separate Project Scope:
When a library is in a separate project, VSCode can’t directly analyze its source code to infer types. Declaration files (.d.ts) bridge this gap.
4. Declaration Files:
They describe the types of variables, functions, and classes within a library.
They’re written in TypeScript, a superset of JavaScript with explicit typing.
VSCode can leverage them for type hinting even in JavaScript projects.
5. Type Acquisition Methods:
Automatic: VSCode tries to automatically fetch declaration files for popular libraries.
Manual: Install declaration files from DefinitelyTyped (a community repository): npm install --save-dev @types/<library-name>
Generating: Compile a library’s TypeScript source code or use tools to create .d.ts files from JSDoc comments.
Key Points:
Declaration files are essential for type-aware features in VSCode when using external JavaScript libraries.
They make your code more readable, maintainable, and less prone to type-related errors.
Consider using TypeScript for new projects to enjoy strong typing and type safety from the start.
The following is an AI chat conversation regarding the topic stated in the title.
Depending on the quality of the conversation, modifications may have been made. Modifications may or may not be stated in this page.
Should I include code in my tsconfig.json file in “includes” if I want it to be typed, but it is not code for the actual delivered product? For example, if it is build code that I want to be typed.
Whether to include build code in the “includes” list of your tsconfig.json file depends on a few factors:
1. Type Checking and Build Process:
If you want type checking and language features for build code during development, include it.
If the code is executed as part of the build process (e.g., custom webpack plugins), include it for accurate type checking during build.
2. Performance and Build Size:
If type checking build code is unnecessary or impacts performance negatively, exclude it.
If including a large amount of build code unnecessarily increases the built JavaScript output, exclude it.
3. Organization and Clarity:
If inclusion makes project structure clearer and tooling easier to set up, include it.
If exclusion better organizes code for separation of concerns, exclude it.
Best Practices:
Separate build code into a dedicated directory for organization and clarity.
Use a separate tsconfig.json file specifically for build code, ensuring appropriate configurations without affecting main code.
Consider “files” property for explicit file lists instead of “include” for fine-grained control and clarity.
If build code benefits from type checking or is part of the build process, include it.
If performance, build size, or code separation are primary concerns, exclude it.
Prioritize clarity, organization, and tooling convenience for effective development.
I want the build code to be included in type checking in VSCode. Would any parent tsconfig.json be detected? Must it be called tsconfig.json?
Here’s how parent tsconfig.json files and type checking in VS Code work:
1. Inheritance:
VS Code automatically detects and uses parent tsconfig.json files within the same workspace folder.
It merges configurations from parent files, allowing for shared settings and overrides in child files.
2. File Searching:
VS Code searches for tsconfig.json files in the following order:
Current workspace folder
Parent workspace folders (recursively)
User-specified path (using the “typescript.tsconfig.autoDetect” setting)
3. File Name:
Yes, the file must be named tsconfig.json. VS Code specifically looks for this file name.
Recommendations for VS Code:
Position tsconfig.json files strategically: Place them in relevant workspace folders for desired inheritance and configuration sharing.
Consider separate files for build code: Isolate build-related configurations for better organization and tailored type checking.
Manually specify a parent tsconfig.json: If necessary, use the “typescript.tsconfig.autoDetect” setting to direct VS Code to a specific parent file.
Additional Tips:
Use the “extends” property: Explicitly reference a parent tsconfig.json for clarity and maintainability, even within the same workspace folder.
Customize workspace settings: Adjust VS Code’s TypeScript settings for specific needs in your project (e.g., enabling or disabling automatic detection).
Example:
If you have a top-level tsconfig.json for shared settings and a separate tsconfig.build.json for build code within a nested ‘build’ folder, inheritance and automatic detection will typically work as expected in VS Code.