Add types

[Murderlon]

Closes #4

Wanted to know the process of adding types to an existing lib so here we are. I followed Microsoft's advice on using tsd instead of dtslint. Am I missing a reason dtslint is always used even for simple tests?

[ChristianMurphy]

Am I missing a reason dtslint is always used even for simple tests?

Good question.
dtslint is type checking, plus a range of lint checks.
For developers that only want type checks tsd is an excellent option.
At unified (so far), there has been a preference to have both the type checks and the lint checks, to keep the code following a consistent standard.

I followed Microsoft's advice on using tsd

This isn't advise, so much as offering an alternative for developers who don't want the lint checks.

[ChristianMurphy]

Thanks @Murderlon this looks pretty good!
Would it be possible to use dtslint to get the additional lint checks provided?
And could a test case be added verifying the util can be used in a Unified plugin/tranform? (similar to https://github.com/syntax-tree/mdast-util-toc/blob/94cbac8b65c16209537d863f092642cb6a45bcf4/types/mdast-util-toc-tests.ts#L55-L64)

[ChristianMurphy]

LGTM, thanks @Murderlon! 🙇‍♂️

[ChristianMurphy]

/cc @Rokt33r

[Murderlon]

And could a test case be added verifying the util can be used in a Unified plugin/tranform? (similar to syntax-tree/mdast-util-toc:types/mdast-util-toc-tests.ts@94cbac8#L55-L64)

I added a unified plugin example. I’m a bit confused on what it tests in this context. To me, it seems I don’t explicitly assert anything?

[ChristianMurphy]

I added a unified plugin example. I’m a bit confused on what it tests in this context. To me, it seems I don’t explicitly assert anything?

Mainly it ensures that tree as it is passed from unified matches the signature of modify, if those were to conflict dtslint will error.
It also offers a test case that shows usage in the most common scenario, being used in a plugin.

[wooorm]

Released in 2.0.0!