Add type definitions for Uint8Array to/from base64 methods#61696
Add type definitions for Uint8Array to/from base64 methods#61696jakebailey merged 21 commits intomicrosoft:mainfrom
Uint8Array to/from base64 methods#61696Conversation
|
This PR doesn't have any linked issues. Please open an issue that references this PR. From there we can discuss and prioritise. |
|
@microsoft-github-policy-service agree |
|
Officially shipped in Chrome 140 |
|
This PR needs a merge from main in order to be mergable. |
|
This all seems fine, but, double checking: @typescript-bot test it |
|
Hey @jakebailey, the results of running the DT tests are ready. Everything looks the same! |
|
@jakebailey Here are the results of running the user tests with tsc comparing There were infrastructure failures potentially unrelated to your change:
Otherwise... Everything looks good! |
|
@jakebailey Here they are:
tscComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@jakebailey Here are the results of running the top 400 repos with tsc comparing Everything looks good! |
jakebailey
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I missed something here; the options bags need to have explicit | undefined annotation in addition to ? to indicate that passing an explicit undefined is okay (versus requiring it be "missing").
|
Hopefully this is better. Thank you for taking the time to review the changes. |
|
FWIW we don't usually make tests for |
|
I see. Should I? Out of curiosity, what is the 'cases/conformance/esnext' directory for (in that case)? |
|
It used to be for emit, but I think I missed the added test for Atomic in #61646. |
jakebailey
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM but need to double check that the extra file is the right solution.
|
Going to just take this as-is. When they are in ES2025 (or later?), these files will get deleted anyway (see also #58573). |
|
Can this be backported to release-5.9? |
|
No, we do not backport features to old versions in patches. |
See #61695, which this pull request attempts to fix
Fixes #61695