Can We Stick to a Common Definition Name Casing?

[TeamworkGuy2]

I've noticed a few new definitions aren't following the accepted[1] lower-dash-casing used by the previous ~1800 definitions, specifically:

• CybozuLabs-md5 (@pine)
• DataStream.js (@Tatx)
• FileSaver (@cyrilschumacher) - npm 'file-saver'
• Finch (@DavidSichau) - npm 'finchjs'
• Headroom (@hakubo)
• HubSpot-pace (@borislavjivkov)
• JSONStream (@Bartvds) - npm 'JSONStream'
• PayPal-Cordova-Plugin (@Justin-Credible)

When I started using DefinitelyTyped definitions, I thought it was a little odd that some library names where different from their 'official' name to match the lower-dash-casing convention, but it makes a lot of sense now that I've used DT for a while. For example, when I'm adding JQuery typings to a project I don't need to remember if it's 'JQuery' or 'jQuery' or 'Jquery', I know everything in DT is lower case, so it must be 'jquery'. This lightens the mental complexity.

I think the current 1800 projects make a good precedent for sticking with one convention.
Would you guys (DT contributors/admins and community feedback) be okay with pull requests renaming the above mentioned definitions using the common dash-casing naming convention?

---

[1]The DT Contribution guide isn't explicit about using a specific convention. It does recommend lowercase:

Naming the file
Try to use a simple lowercase identifier as name of the definition file, like library.d.ts or node-hoge.d.ts. To keep naming conflicts to a minimum please use the package name as used in the npm package registry. The only exception here should be NuGet / Windows oriented code as they use a camel-case convention.
[...]
Location
The typing must be placed in a folder. The folder name must be similar to library name.
Example: qunit.d.ts in in a folder named qunit

[yeiniel]

I think i'm experiencing some problems with this. I'm trying to use typescript@next and the JSONStream package. I found the @types/jsonstream and installed it. Now if i import JSONStream the compailer says it doesn't find a definition for it and if i import jsonstream Node throw an exception running the code because the jsonstream package is not found. Any idea?

[mhegazy]

The name of the folder should match the name of the npm package for the reason @yeiniel explained. I would consider any declaration folder that does not match its npm package a bug that should be fixed. please feel free to send PRs for these, and i will merge them.

[yeiniel]

I would like to help you @mhegazy with the PR but i don't found where to modify the package.json used to upload @types/jsontream to NPM in order to fix the problem.

[mhegazy]

The packages are published from the types-2.0 branch, using the types-publisher tool. It should be sufficient to change the folder name, and the publisher should pick these up. so just rename the folder on the branch, and make sure all the other packages that reference it use the new name in /// <reference types

We also need to file a bug for deprecating the other packages, and adding a reference to the new ones (e.g. angularjs). for now we do these manually. so i would file a bug for each renamed package.

[yeiniel]

The folder name is correct. Is the package publisher on NPM the one with the wrong name.

[mhegazy]

The folder name is correct. Is the package publisher on NPM the one with the wrong name.

which package is this specifically?

[yeiniel]

The JSONStream package is the one. In the DefinitelyTyped repo the folder
name is "JSONStream" but the package published in NPM is
"@types/jsonstream". I'm aware that the same author of JSONStream has
published the same package on NPM with the name "jsonstream". But the
latter seems to not be the canonical one because it's more outdated.

Yeiniel Suarez Sosa
Automatic Control Engineer

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Mohamed Hegazy notifications@github.com
wrote:

The folder name is correct. Is the package publisher on NPM the one with
the wrong name.

which package is this specifically?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#9716 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABFoYd2M_KzTZte5nTxYf31mdLBq84y-ks5qXBh6gaJpZM4I5PCL
.

[mhegazy]

this is gonna be a problem then.. not sure what we can do. new NPM packages can not have uppercase letters in their names. the original package has been shipped already. May be we can make the package lookup in the compiler always look for the lower case name of the type package..

[mhegazy]

@RyanCavanaugh though?

[RyanCavanaugh]

May be we can make the package lookup in the compiler always look for the lower case name of the type package.

Seems reasonable

[mhegazy]

Filed microsoft/TypeScript#9824 to track this.

[DanielRosenwasser]

The package for Polymer is spelled with an uppercase P, so I don't know whether that's the best idea. Why can't we just redirect the packages as appropriate?

[mhegazy]

The package for Polymer is spelled with an uppercase P,

I was talking about @types packages, not all npm packages.

Why can't we just redirect the packages as appropriate?

what do you mean redirect?