TypeScript Definitions

[kspearrin]

It would be nice if there were TypeScript definitions for this SDK. Thanks!

[eropple]

I agree with this; for us (~100 user shop currently evaluating Okta) this is not just a nice-to-have, this is a requirement.

[jiyuhan]

This is much needed. Is anybody working on this, or having a plan for this?

[Shahaed]

I agree. It is unacceptable

[leifdreizler]

+1 to having TypeScript Definitions 👍

[rafakwolf]

+1 :D

[swiftone]

Your comments are not ignored, this is just competing with all the various new features and quality of life improvements. For now continue to vote for this issue if you'd like to see us focus on it and we'll improve our communication in return.

[smithki]

Between this and okta/okta-auth-js#64, I think it's pretty clear there is a wide need for TypeScript typings. This lack makes Okta a tough sell to the engineering managers! 😉

[nbarbettini]

@smithki Understood, thanks for your feedback!

[eropple]

@Shahaed I'm looking forward to TypeScript definitions as much as anyone, but there is absolutely no call for being a jerk about it.

[eduardomourar]

As a good starting point, this blog should be looked and this library to generate the definitions here as well.

[Shahaed]

@Shahaed I'm looking forward to TypeScript definitions as much as anyone, but there is absolutely no call for being a jerk about it.

And there is absolutely no call for being overly nice about a near critical feature (from a PAID service) for all codebases converting to TypeScript. 🤷‍♂@eropple

[jnelken]

Anyone care to share what they've made so far? Maybe we can crowdsource something. I found a few basic return types here https://developer.okta.com/blog/2019/09/19/nodejs-typescript

[robertjd]

Hi everyone, thank you for your thoughts. We've discussed this and have decided that Typescript should get some first-party support from us, so we will start working it into our roadmap. Continue to watch this issue for updates. Thanks!

[shellscape]

@robertjd we're past two years open on this issue and I see nothing public addressing this since your last comment. TypeScript is no longer niche. what's the word?

[swiftone]

Adding Typescript definitions to our work is actively on people's sprints, but does bounce around as priority issues appear. I don't have a more specific answer than that: The work isn't theoretical, it is actively happening, and you should start seeing it appear on our various repos.

[Ziao]

Just adding my $0.02. This is actively scaring away potential customers. I for one wouldn't even consider using a library that does not have definitions available when it is going to play such an important role in my applications. I don't believe I am the only one with this opinion.
Not trying to be an ass, just sharing my point of view.

[myspivey]

We are potential customers and I want to gently agree here. I spent a great deal of time this weekend trying to figure out why something was failing that was listed in the docs only to figure out the docs were wrong. This would have been pretty clear cut with types giving me a hint that things were out of sync between implementation and docs.

[swiftone]

@Ziao and @myspivey - We appreciate the feedback. Typescript definitions are being actively pursued, we are just taking some time to (1) do the projects in dependency order and (2) make sure we're doing it right and maintainably, as we feel poor or out-of-date definitions are worse than none.

Definitely keep sharing your comments - we are listening and we understand the delays are frustrating.

[swiftone]

Just a periodic update: We are rolling out TypeScript definitions in one of our more heavily-depended libraries. If that goes smoothly, other libraries will be updated with TypeScript definitions, including this one.

You can view that other TypeScript deployment here: okta/okta-auth-js#413

[oleksandrpravosudko-okta]

TypeScripts definitions are available in 4.5.0. (cc @mraible)

[mraible]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this means we have TypeScript support in all our JS SDKs! 😃😁😆

[tsibelman]

Is there any example I can check ?

[oleksandrpravosudko-okta]

@tsibelman I have pushed a naive usage example here.

It looks like there is an issue with generated client's create* and update* method signatures - I will create a follow-up PR to address that. Sorry for inconvenience.

[tsibelman]

@oleksandrpravosudko-okta Thank you for this

[oleksandrpravosudko-okta]

@tsibelman Please check out 4.5.1 release. The README has been updated with a suggested usage example.

[tsibelman]

It looks great I changed my code and all is working fine, but I think if you can move all models declaration to a root of the library it could make type a bit more discoverable compared to '@okta/okta-sdk-nodejs/src/types/models/LogEvent'

[oleksandrpravosudko-okta]

Thanks for the feedback @tsibelman.
Moving model declarations to a root of the library also requires updating JS exports in the same way, otherwise users might end up referencing non-existent models at runtime when attempting to instantiate them. I believe this will be done in future releases, when ES modules support is introduced to this library.

[shellscape]

@oleksandrpravosudko-okta the established pattern for a move of exports now would be to move the exports, duplicate them to the old spot, and deprecate the old spot. That's an extremely common pattern to follow when initial choices that users may now depend on need to be refined. I'd really encourage you fine folks there at Okta to embrace common open source patterns in Okta's open source libs.

[shellscape]

@oleksandrpravosudko-okta it's been over a month with no reply to the last comment. since this issue has been open since 2018, the work I described is rather trivial, and this package is maintained by a corporate entity, it would be cool if you could at least give us (who are mostly working for orgs that pay for Okta) an idea of timeline.

[oleksandrpravosudko-okta]

Apologies for the lack of updates here @shellscape.
The suggestion you made was implemented in #237 and will be released in 4.6.0. I will post another update when the release timeline is known.

[shellscape]

Wonderful, thank you very much.

[oleksandrpravosudko-okta]

@shellscape please check out 4.6.0 release.