Support custom Error subclass in the TypeScript types
#13
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sindresorhus
requested changes
Aug 16, 2020
gr2m
force-pushed
the
support-custom-error-type
branch
from
0e53d43 to
9d83bee
Compare
fixed |
sindresorhus
changed the title
Error subclass in the TypeScript types
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
First of all thanks for the great library! We use it in
semantic-releaseand love it!I'm now looking into using it in
@octokit/webhooksin order to address octokit/webhooks.js#182We use a custom Error type for request errors, which are the most common error types in webhook event handlers, so I'd like to provide better intellisense when users interact with the errors from the AggregatedError array. In order to make that possible, the Error type used by would need to be customizeable. That's what I do in this pull request.
Sorry for not opening an issue first, I figured it would be easier to reason about the implementation details in a pull request