Docs: Mark typedef as deprecated / feature frozen #11187
Comments
|
It's not marked as deprecated in the rule list either. (Misread the issue first that it was supposed to be deprecated, but this issue just suggest that it should be deprecated) "isolatedDeclarations" also force you to type more things, so it could be mentioned in that rule page too? It's not exactly same, but if someone updates the page otherwise, maybe it could be added to Further reading section: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-5-5.html#isolated-declarations |
|
We honestly should probably just delete the rule. People misuse it all the time to enforce what are objectively bad practices (like annotating every single variable). I think there's enough coverage from other rules (explicit-module-boundary-types, explicit-function-return-type) and from TS features (noImplicitAny, isolatedDeclarations) that promote good practices. |
|
Oh I'm very into this 😄 I thought the prevailing team opinion was "it has to exist because some people use it". But +1 to deleting! Maybe: deprecate this major version, delete in the next? |
Before You File a Documentation Request Please Confirm You Have Done The Following...
Suggested Changes
I just posted an answer to a StackOverflow question: Typescript ESlint conflict between no-inferrable-types and typedef. The user is asking, in 2025, about the right way to use
@typescript-eslint/typedef.Looking back on https://typescript-eslint.io/rules/typedef - the page doesn't actually mention the rule is deprecated until after the description & example code block. On smaller monitors and phones it's not even above the fold.
Proposal: how about we mark the rule as deprecated and feature-frozen?
Affected URL(s)
https://typescript-eslint.io/rules/typedef/
Additional Info
I'm not suggesting we remove the rule (yet?). I think a lot of folks have come to rely on it. But I don't see any reason to keep it around long-term, given the inexorable increase in cases where it's harmful.
💖
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: