Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[🐞] packaged types for qwik don't seem to be perfect #5421

Closed
wmertens opened this issue Nov 11, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

[🐞] packaged types for qwik don't seem to be perfect #5421

wmertens opened this issue Nov 11, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
STATUS-2: requires discussion Requires further discussion before moving forward TYPE: bug Something isn't working

Comments

@wmertens
Copy link
Member

wmertens commented Nov 11, 2023

Which component is affected?

Qwik Runtime

Describe the bug

The npm package apparently has several issues with the types. See https://arethetypeswrong.github.io/?p=%40builder.io%2Fqwik%401.2.17

Reproduction

N/a

Steps to reproduce

No response

System Info

Any

Additional Information

No response

@wmertens wmertens added TYPE: bug Something isn't working STATUS-1: needs triage New issue which needs to be triaged labels Nov 11, 2023
@wmertens wmertens changed the title [🐞] types don't seem to be perfect [🐞] packaged types for qwik don't seem to be perfect Nov 11, 2023
@shairez shairez added STATUS-2: requires discussion Requires further discussion before moving forward and removed STATUS-1: needs triage New issue which needs to be triaged labels May 25, 2024
@shairez
Copy link
Contributor

shairez commented May 25, 2024

@wmertens is this still the case or can be closed?

@PatrickJS
Copy link
Member

@wmertens
Copy link
Member Author

it's not perfect but it's plenty good now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
STATUS-2: requires discussion Requires further discussion before moving forward TYPE: bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants