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

Add type definitions for recoil #44756

Merged
merged 13 commits into from May 29, 2020
Merged

Conversation

csantos42
Copy link
Contributor

@csantos42 csantos42 commented May 15, 2020

Please fill in this template.

  • Use a meaningful title for the pull request. Include the name of the package modified.
  • Test the change in your own code. (Compile and run.)
  • Add or edit tests to reflect the change. (Run with npm test.)
  • Follow the advice from the readme.
  • Avoid common mistakes.
  • Run npm run lint package-name (or tsc if no tslint.json is present).

Select one of these and delete the others:

If adding a new definition:

  • The package does not already provide its own types, or cannot have its .d.ts files generated via --declaration
  • If this is for an NPM package, match the name. If not, do not conflict with the name of an NPM package.
  • Create it with dts-gen --dt, not by basing it on an existing project.
  • Represents shape of module/library correctly
  • tslint.json should be present and it shouldn't have any additional or disabling of rules. Just content as { "extends": "dtslint/dt.json" }. If for reason the some rule need to be disabled, disable it for that line using // tslint:disable-next-line [ruleName] and not for whole package so that the need for disabling can be reviewed.
  • tsconfig.json should have noImplicitAny, noImplicitThis, strictNullChecks, and strictFunctionTypes set to true.

@typescript-bot typescript-bot added New Definition This PR creates a new definition package. Where is Travis? labels May 15, 2020
@typescript-bot
Copy link
Contributor

typescript-bot commented May 15, 2020

@csantos42 Thank you for submitting this PR! I see this is your first time submitting to DefinitelyTyped 👋 - keep an eye on this comment as I'll be updating it with information as things progress.

Code Reviews

This PR adds a new definition, so it needs to be reviewed by a DT maintainer before it can be merged.

Status

  • No merge conflicts
  • Continuous integration tests have passed
  • Only a DT maintainer can merge changes when there are new packages added

Once every item on this list is checked, I'll ask you for permission to merge and publish the changes.


Diagnostic Information: What the bot saw about this PR
{
  "type": "info",
  "now": "-",
  "pr_number": 44756,
  "author": "csantos42",
  "owners": [],
  "dangerLevel": "ScopedAndConfiguration",
  "headCommitAbbrOid": "f6ddc8d",
  "headCommitOid": "f6ddc8da25b2f47bf62aa132a87fd2ce24d82eb4",
  "mergeIsRequested": false,
  "stalenessInDays": 0,
  "lastCommitDate": "2020-05-29T18:05:09.000Z",
  "lastCommentDate": "2020-05-29T17:40:30.000Z",
  "reviewLink": "https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped/pull/44756/files",
  "hasMergeConflict": false,
  "authorIsOwner": false,
  "isFirstContribution": true,
  "popularityLevel": "Well-liked by everyone",
  "anyPackageIsNew": true,
  "packages": [
    "recoil"
  ],
  "files": [
    {
      "filePath": "types/recoil/index.d.ts",
      "kind": "definition",
      "package": "recoil"
    },
    {
      "filePath": "types/recoil/recoil-tests.ts",
      "kind": "test",
      "package": "recoil"
    },
    {
      "filePath": "types/recoil/tsconfig.json",
      "kind": "package-meta",
      "package": "recoil"
    },
    {
      "filePath": "types/recoil/tslint.json",
      "kind": "package-meta",
      "package": "recoil"
    }
  ],
  "hasDismissedReview": false,
  "ciResult": "pass",
  "lastReviewDate": "2020-05-29T18:19:28.000Z",
  "reviewersWithStaleReviews": [
    {
      "reviewedAbbrOid": "22328be",
      "reviewer": "smmoosavi",
      "date": "2020-05-21T00:52:24Z"
    },
    {
      "reviewedAbbrOid": "53fcac4",
      "reviewer": "acutmore",
      "date": "2020-05-16T16:48:28Z"
    }
  ],
  "approvalFlags": 4,
  "isChangesRequested": false
}

@danger-public
Copy link

danger-public commented May 15, 2020

Inspecting the JavaScript source for this package found some properties that are not in the .d.ts files.
The check for missing properties isn't always right, so take this list as advice, not a requirement.

recoil (unpkg)

was missing the following properties:

  1. useSetUnvalidatedAtomValues_UNSTABLE
  2. useTransactionObservation_UNSTABLE
  3. useTransactionSubscription_UNSTABLE

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against f6ddc8d

@typescript-bot
Copy link
Contributor

typescript-bot commented May 15, 2020

👋 Hi there! I’ve run some quick measurements against master and your PR. These metrics should help the humans reviewing this PR gauge whether it might negatively affect compile times or editor responsiveness for users who install these typings.

Let’s review the numbers, shall we?

These typings are for a package that doesn’t yet exist on master, so I don’t have anything to compare against yet! In the future, I’ll be able to compare PRs to recoil with its source on master.

Comparison details 📊
Batch compilation
Type count 16266
Assignability cache size 34408
Language service measurements
Samples taken 135
Identifiers in tests 135
getCompletionsAtPosition
    Mean duration (ms) 300.8
    Mean CV 9.5%
    Worst duration (ms) 401.6
    Worst identifier loadable
getQuickInfoAtPosition
    Mean duration (ms) 306.6
    Mean CV 9.2%
    Worst duration (ms) 378.2
    Worst identifier getValue
System information
Node version v12.16.3
CPU count 2
CPU speed 2.095 GHz
CPU model Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8171M CPU @ 2.60GHz
CPU Architecture x64
Memory 6.8 GiB
Platform linux
Release 4.15.0-1082-azure

@davidmccabe
Copy link

davidmccabe commented May 15, 2020

I'm not too familiar with TypeScript but I don't see any indicator of covariance for the read-only values. Is that part of this?

@Albert-Gao
Copy link
Contributor

Albert-Gao commented May 16, 2020

@davidmccabe Do you mean to mark the argument of the setValue as readonly?

Sadly, the keyword readonly in TS can only be applied to a property of an object, does not apply to an argument of a function. and the issue is closed :(

microsoft/TypeScript#18497

@Dreamacro
Copy link

Dreamacro commented May 16, 2020

can export the type like RecoilState? Sometimes need to wrap useRecoilState

types/recoil/lib/core/atom.d.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@aappddeevv
Copy link

aappddeevv commented May 16, 2020

I'm not sure the RecoilValue type is right. If RecoilValue can be used in useRecoilState then it should be readwrite. But the definition is RecoilValue = RecoilValueReadOnly|RecoilState and useRecoilState(RecoilValue). Did I read that correctly? I'm not sure I'm looking in the right place.

I think I read the wrong code..it does look like it is set correctly.

dustinsoftware added a commit to dustinsoftware/recoil-playground that referenced this pull request May 17, 2020
Referencing this PR and stealing over portions that make sense

DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped#44756
types/recoil/lib/core/state.d.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@typescript-bot typescript-bot moved this from Waiting for Code Reviews to Needs Maintainer Review in New Pull Request Status Board May 20, 2020
@typescript-bot typescript-bot added the Other Approved This PR was reviewed and signed-off by a community member. label May 20, 2020
Copy link

@smmoosavi smmoosavi left a comment

RecoilState should be both covariance and contravariance. because it is both readable and writable.

but right now any RecoilState can be assigned to any RecoilState without any error.

@typescript-bot typescript-bot added the Revision needed This PR needs code changes before it can be merged. label May 20, 2020
@typescript-bot typescript-bot moved this from Needs Maintainer Review to Needs Author Action in New Pull Request Status Board May 20, 2020
@typescript-bot typescript-bot moved this from Needs Author Action to Waiting for Code Reviews in New Pull Request Status Board May 26, 2020
@typescript-bot typescript-bot moved this from Waiting for Code Reviews to Needs Maintainer Review in New Pull Request Status Board May 26, 2020
@typescript-bot
Copy link
Contributor

typescript-bot commented May 26, 2020

@smmoosavi, @acutmore Thank you for reviewing this PR! The author has pushed new commits since your last review. Could you take another look and submit a fresh review?

@csantos42 csantos42 requested a review from sheetalkamat May 27, 2020
@amcasey amcasey mentioned this pull request May 28, 2020
12 tasks
@kolodny
Copy link
Contributor

kolodny commented May 28, 2020

I've done some work independently, not realizing this PR existed. I have a couple of the tricky cases worked out. The types are pretty well tested and are quite robust. Feel free to incorporate anything from that branch to this PR.

kolodny@7bae698#diff-536a520cf5eea35920533711cf917823

@typescript-bot typescript-bot moved this from Needs Maintainer Review to Waiting for Code Reviews in New Pull Request Status Board May 28, 2020
@typescript-bot typescript-bot moved this from Waiting for Code Reviews to Needs Maintainer Review in New Pull Request Status Board May 28, 2020
@typescript-bot
Copy link
Contributor

typescript-bot commented May 28, 2020

@amcasey, @smmoosavi, @acutmore Thank you for reviewing this PR! The author has pushed new commits since your last review. Could you take another look and submit a fresh review?

@amcasey
Copy link
Contributor

amcasey commented May 28, 2020

@csantos42 Thanks! I think that addresses @sheetalkamat's concern. She knows more about modules resolution than I do and may be able to suggest a way to get back your tidy multi-file structure, but it seems like there's enough excitement around these types to handle that in a separate PR.

Did you have a chance to look at @kolodny and pull out possible improvements?

@smmoosavi @Gregoor @acutmore @renanmav Remaining concerns?

@csantos42
Copy link
Contributor Author

csantos42 commented May 28, 2020

@amcasey yes, we should be good to go on our end :)

@smmoosavi
Copy link

smmoosavi commented May 29, 2020

Remaining concerns?

@amcasey the issue with RecoilValueReadOnly fixed. but RecoilState has a problem yet. contravariance is not checked in writable states

problem

const stringAtom: RecoilState<string> = {} as any;
const stringOrNumberAtom: RecoilState<string|number> = stringAtom // no error. it should detect error, it should check contravariance. because RecoilState is writable

const [value, setValue] = useRecoilState<string|number>(stringOrNumberAtom)
setValue(5) // no error, ok, SetterOrUpdater<string|number> should accept number

const value2 = useRecoilValue(stringAtom) // expect value2 should be string, but it is 5

solution

we can add another key to writable states to check contravariance.
see solution in playground playground
there is other solution with one extra key: solution2

type NodeKey = string
declare type CB<T> = (t: T) => void;

export class AbstractRecoilValue<T> {
    ' covariance-value': [T];
    ' contravariance-value': [CB<T>];
    key: NodeKey;
    constructor(newKey: NodeKey);
}

export class AbstractRecoilValueReadonly<T> {
    ' covariance-value': [T];
    key: NodeKey;
    constructor(newKey: NodeKey);
}

also tag and valTag doesn't exist in js, it's better to have unintuitive names started with space, and with this new suggested types we can remove tag key.

@csantos42
Copy link
Contributor Author

csantos42 commented May 29, 2020

thanks @smmoosavi ! Clever-- I didn't think of using a function type to ensure contravariance, I'll make that change now :)

@typescript-bot typescript-bot moved this from Needs Maintainer Review to Waiting for Code Reviews in New Pull Request Status Board May 29, 2020
@typescript-bot typescript-bot moved this from Waiting for Code Reviews to Needs Maintainer Review in New Pull Request Status Board May 29, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@amcasey amcasey left a comment

I think @smmoosavi's concerns have been addressed and there's tremendous interest in this PR, so I'm going to preemptively merge it. @csantos42, please be responsive to subsequent feedback if it turns out I've merged too soon.

@typescript-bot typescript-bot added Maintainer Approved Self Merge This PR can now be self-merged by the PR author or an owner labels May 29, 2020
@typescript-bot typescript-bot moved this from Needs Maintainer Review to Waiting for Author to Merge in New Pull Request Status Board May 29, 2020
@amcasey amcasey merged commit 596b09f into DefinitelyTyped:master May 29, 2020
1 check passed
@typescript-bot typescript-bot removed this from Waiting for Author to Merge in New Pull Request Status Board May 29, 2020
@csantos42
Copy link
Contributor Author

csantos42 commented May 29, 2020

Thanks a lot @amcasey! And thanks to everyone that reviewed/contributed/commented on this PR! I'll be sure to monitor any subsequent feedback promptly

@itsMapleLeaf
Copy link
Contributor

itsMapleLeaf commented May 31, 2020

Recoil 0.0.8 is published on npm, but the types are still missing a few things, like atomFamily and selectorFamily. I wouldn't mind adding those myself, I guess checking to see if someone's already working on it

@csantos42 csantos42 deleted the recoil-types branch May 31, 2020
@csantos42
Copy link
Contributor Author

csantos42 commented Jun 1, 2020

hi @kingdaro, I'm working on this now, should be done some time tonight. Thanks!

jjballano-qatium pushed a commit to jjballano-qatium/DefinitelyTyped that referenced this pull request Jun 16, 2020
* Initial types

* TypeScript types for Recoil

* fix lint errors

* fix tests

* Remove unused types

* fix prettier error

* Improve types in response to feedback

* Remove loadable accessors

* Fix broken tests

* Fix reference to React types

* Fix lint error

* Consolidate types into one file to match src structure

* fix contravariance of writeable state:
ngbrown pushed a commit to ngbrown-forks/DefinitelyTyped that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2020
* Initial types

* TypeScript types for Recoil

* fix lint errors

* fix tests

* Remove unused types

* fix prettier error

* Improve types in response to feedback

* Remove loadable accessors

* Fix broken tests

* Fix reference to React types

* Fix lint error

* Consolidate types into one file to match src structure

* fix contravariance of writeable state:
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Maintainer Approved New Definition This PR creates a new definition package. Self Merge This PR can now be self-merged by the PR author or an owner
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet