[BC Break] Rename duplicate types to allow type emission from react-admin #5257
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Problem
We have name conflicts in
ra-coreandra-ui-materialui(Sort,FilterandNavigationexist twice, once as types inra-core, once as components inra-ui-material-ui).The
react-adminpackages reexports all the exports from bothra-coreandra-ui-materialui. The conflicts prevent the TypeScript compilation.Solution
We have no other solution but to rename one of the exports. As the TypeScript migration isn't finished, I think it's less painful to rename the types than the components.
It's a slight BC break for developers who started importing types directly from
ra-core- which is not documented.Besides, the current types are not well enough tested, as the
react-adminpackage doesn't emit them. So they're probably false, and will need further changes. We should not worry about changing these types for now.Refs #4505