Skip to content
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

request: add accompanying importsNotUsedAsValues option for declaration imports #44519

Open
5 tasks done
elmpp opened this issue Jun 9, 2021 · 1 comment
Open
5 tasks done
Labels
Awaiting More Feedback This means we'd like to hear from more people who would be helped by this feature Suggestion An idea for TypeScript

Comments

@elmpp
Copy link

elmpp commented Jun 9, 2021

Suggestion

I'm looking for the ability to instruct the compiler to preserve imports as 'side-effecting' for declaration files. I'm framing this request in terms of the existing importsNotUsedAsValues option for sake of clarity but this is for declarations only.

I suspect it may require a new accompanying option to importsNotUsedAsValues called, .e.g., declarationImportsAsSideEffects

🔍 Search Terms

  • declarations side effect
  • importsNotUsedAsValues declarations
  • import side effect declarations

✅ Viability Checklist

  • This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
  • This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
  • This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
  • This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
  • This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.

⭐ Suggestion

Based on the existing importsNotUsedAsValues behaviour, imports are emitted to .js to varying degrees. This proposal would ensure that there are accompanying imports within emitted .d.ts files to the same degree. For imports that are value-only and preserved, a "side effecting" import './a-module' would be emitted; others would remain as is

📃 Motivating Example

// plugins/my-plugin.ts
declare global {
  export interface AppPlugins {
    myPlugin: {some: 'value'}
  }
}

export default function() { ... }
// plugin-loader.ts

declare global {
  export interface AppPlugins {
    corePlugin: {some: 'otherValue' }
  }
}

import myPlugin from './plugins/my-plugin'
// import './plugins/my-plugin'.   <---- currently required

const plugins: Plugin[] = ...
export default plugins

Compiling yields (tested 4.3.2 with importsNotUsedAsValues='preserve')

// plugin-loader.d.ts

declare global {
  export interface AppPlugins {
    corePlugin: {some: 'otherValue' }
  }
}

// import './plugins/my-plugin'  // <---- would be emitted with proposed change

declare const plugins: Plugin[];
export default plugins;

Currently, if another module were to import plugin-loader:

// app.ts
import plugins from './plugin-loader'

type PluginNames = keyof AppPlugins  //  'corePlugin'

Note that the augmentation type (global/module) doesn't matter, just that they're included

💻 Use Cases

  • What do you want to use this for?
    Enable plugin architectures where augmentations can be reliably expected to have been reached

  • What workarounds are you using in the meantime?
    "Shadow" side-effect imports to ensure declarations include import

What shortcomings exist with current (workaround) approach?

  • Redundant, confusing to new eyes etc. In my particular use case where such code will be authored by plugin creators, any decreased DX is particularly unappealing. Worth mentioning that any missed shadow import in the chain would lead to the augmentation going unnoticed so this workaround would snowball
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Awaiting More Feedback This means we'd like to hear from more people who would be helped by this feature Suggestion An idea for TypeScript
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants