Typescript support #272
Typescript support #272
Conversation
octocorvus
force-pushed
the
typescript-support
branch
6 times, most recently
from
2383291
to
855e3cb
Compare
octocorvus
force-pushed
the
typescript-support
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b88cccf
to
b28be2e
Compare
Bumps [eslint](https://github.com/eslint/eslint) from 8.44.0 to 8.45.0. - [Release notes](https://github.com/eslint/eslint/releases) - [Changelog](https://github.com/eslint/eslint/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md) - [Commits](eslint/eslint@v8.44.0...v8.45.0) --- updated-dependencies: - dependency-name: eslint dependency-type: direct:development update-type: version-update:semver-minor ... Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Use esbuild to bundle TypeScript files as a single ES module, to avoid having to hardocode each script file in Java code.
This is handled by gradle now.
This is handled by gradle now. Also, the script isn't cross platform.
octocorvus
force-pushed
the
typescript-support
branch
from
b28be2e
to
e63175d
Compare
|
Could you add more details about this change? What is wrong with plain JS scripts? Are there any risks in introducing more npm dependencies (with/without caret ranges)? In other words: what are advantages and disadvantages of your change from security and maintenance standpoints? |
|
You'll need to rebase this since a gradle-verification metadata error had to be fixed. |
|
TypeScript support is blocked until type definitions related issues with PDF.js are resolved, see mozilla/pdf.js#16705. I'll create another pull request with the rest of the changes. |
Please see commits of #286, the changes are mainly to improve development experience.
TypeScript is type-safe and, in my opinion, more maintainable than JavaScript+JSDoc. And as more features are added, the codebase is expected to get larger, so TypeScript makes more sense.
Yes, there are, especially supply-chain related risks. We can reduce risk by only allowing certain packages. cc @macie |
No description provided.