Why --save instead of --save-dev?

[dalgard]

In instructions on how to use @types, type packages are installed with --save and not --save-dev.

Why is this?

I wouldn't expect that I need the types outside of my development environment?

There should be a note about it in the various readmes.

[RyanCavanaugh]

/cc @DanielRosenwasser

[blakeembrey]

The short answer would be for module authors - if, as an author, you want to publish your TypeScript package to NPM and the dependencies are in the development section, no one will be able to install it and use it without having to manually install your types dev dependencies. By using dependencies, they will be installed along with the package and consumers can use your NPM package without additional configuration. The definitions should follow however you installed the module.

[DanielRosenwasser]

Using --save-dev is fine when you're writing a simple application, and it won't be used as a library. The problem comes along when you might have dependencies. If you stored your type declarations in your devDependencies, your consumers would not automatically get your type declarations. They'd then have to manually add your declaration file dependencies as their devDependencies.

Given that breaking consumers is a worse problem than slightly-larger packages, we've made --save the default in our documentation.

[unional]

If the types are exposed as dependencies, then it should be registered as dependencies. Otherwise, devDependencies.
But agree with @DanielRosenwasser that sometimes this distinction is not easy to make, especially for JS developer, so defaulting to dependencies is the better option.

[aluanhaddad]

I've been basically taking the same road as @unional. Like I'll do
npm install --save-dev @types/tape
or
jspm install --dev npm:@types/tape 😛

[demurgos]

Hi,
I was trying to learn how to use @types so I looked trough the code of some some big projects using Typescript and none of them was using dependencies for @types:

• Typescript
• Types Publisher
• Angular

Is this because these projects are special ? Angular is more front-end oriented and types-publisher is a standalone project (I think), but Typescript can be imported as a library and consumed by others: why aren't some of its @types normal dependencies (like node) ?

[DanielRosenwasser]

@demurgos With respect to TypeScript itself, it only uses declaration files for its build tools (like gulp utilities). It doesn't actually require those tools to run, so it doesn't need the declaration files for those tools either.

Edit: For the others, like Types Publisher, it doesn't matter what it's distributed as since it's a simple executable package that isn't meant to be used as a library.

[demurgos]

Thank you. So you mean that Typescript never require any of the Node's core libraries during runtime ? (outside of their tests/build process)

Basically, I am having trouble to know if I should install environmental types like @types/node as dependencies or devDependencies ? Should I list them as devDependencies and let the user provide them or should I list them as dependencies (and deal with #173) ?

[DanielRosenwasser]

My thought is dependencies since you're written as a library with dependents. For any users using Typings with TypeScript 1.8 and below, they shouldn't be affected, but as you noted, 2.0+ users may run into problems (at which point the solution is trivial - just remove node from their typings.json - but still annoying).

[ivogabe]

Wouldn't that cause trouble when two dependencies depend on different version of @types/node? We're currently looking to use @types in gulp-typescript, and I'm afraid that this could cause issues for a lot of people, since the types of Node are polluting the global namespace. Basically there are two scenarios that could give issues: (1) a project depends on gulp-typescript (which depends on @types/node@1) and on @types/node@2, (2) a project depends on gulp-typescript (which depends on @types/node@1) and on foo, which depends on @types/node@2. NPM will install the types of node twice. Will this cause duplicate-identifier errors?

[ghost]

You could use a semver such as >= 4 to indicate compatibility with future node versions.

[jkillian]

Circling back to what @ivogabe asked - will TypeScript handle conflicting types in a way that works out okay? If I have packages depending on different versions of @types/react for example, can TS only apply those types where correct (based on their location in the node_modules tree? If it's not, it would be great to have a short write-up somewhere on the best way for library authors to include @types dependencies, I've heard a lot of questions about this from around my company.

[unional]

I have packages depending on different versions of @types/react for example, can TS only apply those types where correct (based on their location in the node_modules tree?

Add to that the even harder part is about module augmentation. Which version of react to augment?

[blakeembrey]

@jkillian I believe global definitions can and will conflict, while external module definitions follow module resolution. This is a bit of a pain point, because there's no guarantee a module in @types is external or global and that it won't change suddenly (lodash did this and generated a ton of build errors on various projects). I feel like there are better ways to solving this, but nothing that wouldn't break now.

@unional I think that one should be fine. You can kick in and use peerDependencies if you need to augment the parent. Type dependencies should mirror the regular dependencies for this reason.

[unional]

For react case, yes, because likely there are no direct dependency between react and the authoring package (e.g. react-redux).

But what if there is such a dependency? i.e.:

- app
  - package-a
    - package-b@2.0
  - package-c
    - package-b@1.0
  - package-b@??

And package-a and package-c both make an augmentation to package-b.