docs: rework Type Definitions section in Getting Started guide #13133
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mrazauskas
changed the title
mrazauskas
changed the title
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Built-in types improved a lot recently. Users should judge, of course. In my opinion, the built-in types of
jest.fn(),.eachand alsojest.Mocked/jest.mocked()are better than the ones shipped in@types/jest. Also both implementations are more or less equal in features.Perhaps it’s a good idea to promote the built-in types in the Getting Started guide alongside with
@types/jest? More usage might bring more feedback and a chance to make the types even better ;DTest plan
Deploy preview.