-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
common: Fix linting #1206
common: Fix linting #1206
Conversation
Host Tests (In-Memory Index) Test Results607 tests ±0 602 ✔️ ±0 10m 20s ⏱️ -57s Results for commit 28442dc. ± Comparison against base commit 7a4b13e. This pull request removes 1 and adds 1 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.
♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Host Tests (DB Index) Test Results607 tests ±0 604 ✔️ ±0 11m 41s ⏱️ +23s Results for commit 28442dc. ± Comparison against base commit 7a4b13e. This pull request removes 1 and adds 1 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.
♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
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’m fine with this (I’m probably the one that started using skipLibCheck in the first place). There is a trade off. Type issues in any external imports (which include imports from other workspaces in our repo), will be ignored. So long as we are comfortable with this I think it’s fine. Since we are running type checks in all the TS workspaces in our repo I think we have our bases covered.
Typechecking wasn’t happening for
packages/runtime-common
. The commits fix sets of type errors.skipLibCheck
is frowned upon by some but used in other packages so ¯_(ツ)_/¯