fix: correct breaking deprecation of FlatConfig type #19826
Merged
+7
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA. |
✅ Deploy Preview for docs-eslint canceled.
|
nzakas
approved these changes
Jun 6, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Prerequisites checklist
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to an item)
[ ] Documentation update
[x] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[ ] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofix to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
Almost a year ago when @types/eslint was upgrade to v9 the type alias for the deprecated
FlatConfigwas added but without any type arguments. This was breaking change for any packages which defined their ownRules(whichtscmay do by default) rather than relying on the defaultRulesRecord.This pr simply re-adds the parameter and proxies it to the new
Configtype.Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?