Why did you remove typeName? #1175

New Issue

fergalmoran · 2025-08-09T17:19:09Z

fergalmoran commented

2025-08-09 17:19:09 +00:00

Originally created by @MistyKuu on 12/18/2016

Hey,
I have a quick question. I can see that on DEV branch which was updated 19 days ago you converted

@typeName("REQUEST_WEATHER_FORECASTS")
class RequestWeatherForecasts extends Action {
    constructor(public startDateIndex: number) {
        super();
    }
}

to

interface ReceiveWeatherForecastsAction {
    type: 'RECEIVE_WEATHER_FORECASTS',
    startDateIndex: number;
    forecasts: WeatherForecast[]
}

Is there a particular reason why don't you use typeName anymore?
I am asking because I find the previous syntax easier in case of usage.

*Originally created by @MistyKuu on 12/18/2016* Hey, I have a quick question. I can see that on DEV branch which was updated 19 days ago you converted ``` @typeName("REQUEST_WEATHER_FORECASTS") class RequestWeatherForecasts extends Action { constructor(public startDateIndex: number) { super(); } } ``` to ``` interface ReceiveWeatherForecastsAction { type: 'RECEIVE_WEATHER_FORECASTS', startDateIndex: number; forecasts: WeatherForecast[] } ``` Is there a particular reason why don't you use typeName anymore? I am asking because I find the previous syntax easier in case of usage.

fergalmoran closed this issue

2025-08-09 17:19:09 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github/JavaScriptServices#1175