Skip to content

Conversation

@marco-ippolito
Copy link
Member

@marco-ippolito marco-ippolito commented Nov 23, 2025

updated the documentation since all node.js versions dont need --experimental-strip-types flag to work and the feature is no longer experimental in v25.2.0

@nodejs/typescript

@marco-ippolito marco-ippolito requested a review from a team as a code owner November 23, 2025 07:01
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings November 23, 2025 07:01
@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Nov 23, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Preview Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org Ready Ready Preview Nov 25, 2025 11:54am

Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR updates the documentation for running TypeScript natively in Node.js to reflect that the feature is no longer experimental as of v25.2.0 and that type stripping is enabled by default in v22.18.0+. The documentation has been restructured to prioritize the simpler, default behavior for modern Node.js versions.

Key changes:

  • Reorganized content to lead with the default behavior (v22.18.0+) rather than experimental flags
  • Updated language to reflect stability in v25.2.0
  • Changed section title from "Limitations" to "Constraints"

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 23, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 76.27%. Comparing base (cf7233e) to head (517ad76).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8361      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   76.23%   76.27%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         118      118              
  Lines        9903     9903              
  Branches      337      336       -1     
==========================================
+ Hits         7550     7554       +4     
+ Misses       2351     2347       -4     
  Partials        2        2              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@AugustinMauroy AugustinMauroy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGMT !

Copy link
Member

@ovflowd ovflowd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

TYSM!

Copy link
Contributor

@bmuenzenmeyer bmuenzenmeyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thanks!

a small suggestion:
this whole section is sorta odd now that we are stable. i suggest removing. we always welcome feedback, this is the default

Copy link
Member

@bjohansebas bjohansebas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Co-authored-by: Michael Esteban <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Marco Ippolito <[email protected]>
enum MyEnum {
A,
B,
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How come the example with the enum was removed?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

📦 Build Size Comparison

Summary

Metric Value
Old Total Size 3.51 MB
New Total Size 3.51 MB
Delta 0 B (0.00%)

Changes

➕ Added Assets (1)
Name Size
.next/static/chunks/c1a69d4ec0e5d71b.js 204.32 KB
➖ Removed Assets (1)
Name Size
.next/static/chunks/7bc5bfbae1ad7c75.js 204.32 KB

@marco-ippolito
Copy link
Member Author

idk why tests are failing, it seems unrelated, can someone take a look?

@mikeesto
Copy link
Member

It's unrelated to this PR. I think the action is restoring a cached version of packages/i18n/dist that was created on another run that has the change from #8359 in it

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants