Update definition to include the .reflect method, replaces .inspect method

[jacobdr]

The .inspect method was removed by this commit, and had already been superseded by .reflect.

Bluebird API reference

Closes issue #9

[jacobdr]

Notes on potential merge strategies:

1. Only bump the version in the typings registry to v3.3.5 to point at the merged commit. Bluebird@3.3.5 is the latest release with no other API changes

2. Backport this change to the v3.3.4 and 3.2.1 typings registry definition since .inspect was deprecated well before those releases

[louy]

LGTM 👍

[louy]

I'd go with the second merge strategy. i.e. don't keep the buggy version in the registry.
Any thoughts on how we should keep both version 2 and version 3 definitions in the same repo? Maybe something like what we have in env-node?

[jacobdr]

I have never maintained a typings library, so I want to be clear about your suggestion. Is your suggestion to have the registry file look something like:

{
  "versions": {
      "2.X": "github:typed-typings/npm-bluebird/2.X/ENTRYPOINT.D.TS#17e3625f149665a0c20b818f3a772f56e6d746b7",
      "3.X": "github:typed-typings/npm-bluebird/3.X/ENTRYPOINT.D.TS#asdf25f149665a0c20b818f3a772f56e6d746b7",
    }       
  }

With 2.X and 3.X being root directories of this repository?

[louy]

Kind of. Here's a real life example.

{
  "versions": {
    "3.0.0": "github:typed-typings/npm-bluebird/3#COMMIT",
    "2.0.0": "github:typed-typings/npm-bluebird/2#COMMIT"
  }
}

[louy]

Do you want to remove .settle before I merge this PR btw?

[jacobdr]

Yes... I'll update the PR now.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Louy Alakkad notifications@github.com
wrote:

Do you want to remove .settle before I merge this commit btw?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10 (comment)

[louy]

Awesome. Thank you.

[lhecker]

@jacobdr @louy You guys got the API wrong. 😕
.reflect() doesn't return PromiseInspection but a Bluebird<PromiseInspection>. See here.
(The comment about it being a synchronous inspection is thus wrong.)

Should I send PRs or do you want to handle it?

[jacobdr]

Looks like you are right -- it does return a Promise to a PromiseInspection. In regard to the comment, it is a holdover from the original definitions, which were written for the Bluebird 2.x inspect method but not removed.

If you want, feel free to go ahead and submit a PR -- otherwise I am working on another PR to fix some other differences from the Bluebird 2 -> 3 upgrade, and can roll it in there.

[lhecker]

If you don't mind it'd be cool if you could add those changes into your PR, since it's a very simple issue anyways. 😊