Convert codebase to TypeScript (continued)

[hugofpsilva]

Hello everyone!

Since @GillesDebunne seems to be AWOL I decided to try and continue his work. I hope he doesn't mind.

Let me start by saying that if his work was a WIP (and it was fantastic), this is a HUGE WIP and will be a major headache to anyone reviewing. I'd review everything, because
I actually have no idea what I'm doing 😅 This edit works for me, but I'm not sure it would work for everyone else.
Sorry 😄

I would have picked up where Gilles left off, weren't it for the dozens of commits on master since he last worked on it.
So I actually restarted from master, and using most of his work and some tweaks of my own and from the folks over at DefinitelyTyped, I finally arrived at no errors with all tests passing.

This is still 99% @GillesDebunne's work and credit for the migration should still go to him.
I just "rebased" and most probably introduced some bugs 🙄 🆘

Notable changes from master:

1. Codebase migrated to TS;
2. Added eslint (can ofc remove if this is undesired);
3. Switched to benny for benchmarking. The benchmark package hasn't been updated in 5 years and benny seems to work better with TS projects, being very similar.

Notable changes from Gilles's work:

1. Dropped tsdx. I don't really feel comfortable with this library. It hasn't been released, hasn't been updated in a year and uses quite a few deprecated packages. We could still try to fit this in if really needed. Downside of not using: see below.

Still to do (guide me oh wise ones 🙏):

1. Build process. I was really hoping we could avoid more build tools other than tsc, but if we want to keep broad coverage probably other tools will have to be introduced. Suggestions?
2. Check, double check and triple check everything!;
3. I didn't touch the scripts folder, husky or codecov. Do these need tweaking as well?

Thanks for your time! 🤗

Hugo

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ Hugo Silva (903de5f)

[icambron]

Looking good @hugofpsilva!

[hugofpsilva]

Where do we go from here?

[icambron]

@hugofpsilva Sorry for the very slow reply, haven't had much Luxon time.

I'd like the next major version of Luxon to be Typescript based. I'll certainly do a full review of this, but first, how close is it to being done?

Ideally, this is how we do it:

1. create a 3.0 branch and make this its head
2. forward port any recent changes
3. get it out as quickly as possible to prevent further drift

[likern]

@icambron Hello 👋 Are you still interested in this rewrite?

I've forked luxon project to address this issue #1112. I need not only half-opened intervals, but closed intervals support.

Along the way I migrated to Typescript (with huge rewrite to statically verify types).

If with new major version we could expand luxon functionality too it would be cool.

Also I've found that idea of Duration.invalid() is not good. It easily swallowed errors (if they are not expected to be thrown) when apply changed function which return boolean, for example. It always returns default false and information that error happened is lost.

[hugofpsilva]

@icambron I haven't had much time for this either unfortunately. From where I was before, I was only lacking a proper build tool unless you want to ship only TS with no pure JS support. Now I believe this code has also fallen behind relating to master. I also had this question in particular I didn't touch the scripts folder, husky or codecov. Do these need tweaking as well?

@likern If your version is an improvement over this one, by all means, jump the gun 😉

[likern]

Not an improvement of this PR, it's a complete rewrite from scratch.

[hugofpsilva]

I understand, I meant an improvement to luxon.

[likern]

@icambron This is my ongoing effort likern/timely#4