Add new packages to allowed names in npm banned types

[peterblazejewicz]

The assertion is not a rule, so it cannot be bypassed in DT config.

• 'download-git-repo'
• 'download-package-tarball'

Both are published to NPM registry already.

Required for:
DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped#56874
DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped#56875

Thanks!

/cc @LinqLover

[sandersn]

The problem is that the @types/ versions are not published to NPM already, and NPM will forbid the DT publisher from doing so:

• '@types/download-git-repo'
• '@types/download-package-tarball'

[sandersn]

This won't work because npm won't let us publish new packages with the word 'download' in it.

[LinqLover]

Should there be any policy for DefinitelyTyped to escape such names? E.g., for download-repo, call the types package @types/down--load-repo or something like this?

[peterblazejewicz]

oh, so that does not matter JS source is already on NPM, @types/{banned-word} cannot be published. Thanks for clarification

@LinqLover one can always submit just the same types directly to the original source code, so types are part of published package.

[LinqLover]

@LinqLover one can always submit just the same types directly to the original source code, so types are part of published package.

But this comes with all the disadvantages of not going through DefinitelyTyped. Missing or slow maintenance ...

[peterblazejewicz]

Missing or slow maintenance ...

oh, so, you think, DT is the opposite of those +1
I think publishing to the package is also a win-win scenario for TS ecosystem, and here we're out of the options. I'll close PR

[peterblazejewicz]

closing after @sandersn comments, thx!

[LinqLover]

I think publishing to the package is also a win-win scenario for TS ecosystem, and here we're out of the options. I'll close PR

IMO this draws the entire idea of TypeScript ad absurdum. Could please someone escalate this issue to

1. find out/determine what's the official way how to add type defs for package having "download" in their name - some simple escaping rule or, in the worst case, simple rejection?

   Since Microsoft is owning both TypeScript and npm, it should also be possible to request a special allow-rule for @types/download-x packages where the download-x package already exists, shouldn't it?

2. document the result in the README.md of the DefinitelyTyped repo?

It's pretty irritating for new contributors like me to submit several PRs for packages after following the instructions in the DT repo precisely and then failing at this organizational hurdle.

In addition, considering the trouble in #349 and #350, I have created another PR #351 to document our current knowledge regarding this issue.

[sandersn]

Re (1): now that npm is part of Microsoft, I'll ask around to see if I can find a contact. They were separate companies when I wrote the workaround.