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

fix(express): remove body-parser types and ship these types our own #11325

Merged

Conversation

tolgap
Copy link
Contributor

@tolgap tolgap commented Mar 23, 2023

PR Checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

  • Bugfix
  • Feature
  • Code style update (formatting, local variables)
  • Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
  • Build related changes
  • CI related changes
  • Other... Please describe:

What is the current behavior?

Issue Number: #11302

We were depending on @types/body-parser in this new feature, as body-parser does not ship its own types. But this breaks when using skipLibsCheck: false in tsconfig.json.

What is the new behavior?

I moved the @types/body-parser interface we use over to @nestjs/platform-express. We already have our own NestExpressBodyParserOptions which we can use to type ourselves. So this should not be a breaking change.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

  • Yes
  • No

Other information

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Mar 23, 2023

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 5413841e-9fdb-43a9-81cf-857df98894a3

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 92.656%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 1b9ff98a-aca7-47dd-a30c-9bc9d5c1bf4e: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 6498
Relevant Lines: 7013

💛 - Coveralls

Co-authored-by: Micael Levi L. Cavalcante <mllc@icomp.ufam.edu.br>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants