DNM: chore: TS explicit module boundary starters

[snowystinger]

Closes

Same test instructions as #8375

Require some opinions here, should the starters adhere to this? For some reason they are checked during tsc.
If they should, then do we want ReactNode? or JSX.Element?

I think it should be ReactNode because newer versions of React appear to prefer that.

I think it's being process by TS due to our tsconfig

    "paths": {
      "tailwind-starter/*": ["./starters/tailwind/src/*"]
    }

✅ Pull Request Checklist:

• Included link to corresponding React Spectrum GitHub Issue.
• Added/updated unit tests and storybook for this change (for new code or code which already has tests).
• Filled out test instructions.
• Updated documentation (if it already exists for this component).
• Looked at the Accessibility Practices for this feature - Aria Practices

📝 Test Instructions:

🧢 Your Project:

[rspbot]

Build successful! 🎉

• View the storybook
• View the S2 storybook
• View the documentation

[LFDanLu]

I think it should be fine to run tsc against the starters, think people ran into issues when doing so via #7434 right?

[snowystinger]

I think it should be fine to run tsc against the starters, think people ran into issues when doing so via #7434 right?

Right, but we could run a different config setup against it possibly. I'm not sure everyone wants all the extra type definitions that come with explicit module boundaries, it's pretty noisy as you can see, basically all exported types are duplicated.

[rspbot]

Build successful! 🎉

• View the storybook
• View the S2 storybook
• View the documentation

[LFDanLu]

I see, that makes sense. I'll need to take a look at the config more closely to see what a good middle ground is

[devongovett]

?

[devongovett]

should the starters adhere to this? For some reason they are checked during tsc.

did you try adding it to the "exclude" list?

[snowystinger]

should the starters adhere to this? For some reason they are checked during tsc.

did you try adding it to the "exclude" list?

Yes, I tried adding it to the exclude list. But I don't think we actually want to exclude it, unless we want a separate typecheck for it that doesn't do module boundaries

[devongovett]

unless we want a separate typecheck for it that doesn't do module boundaries

I thought that was what you were asking.

The starters do have their own separate tsconfigs too, so I think they do get type checked separately already.

[rspbot]

Build successful! 🎉

• View the storybook
• View the S2 storybook
• View the documentation

[snowystinger]

You would think that based on them having their own tsconfig, however, if I turn on the isolatedDeclarations in our root config, suddenly these files start failing.

Adding to exclude doesn't do anything, I think because of the paths I mentioned earlier.

If I remove the paths, then dev/docs/pages starts failing because it imports from the starters and suddenly it can't find them.

Do things change enough with your new docs that I should hold off on these?

[devongovett]

Yes, unless we want to fix all the as any. I don't think that would be good to publish in our docs :D Let's figure out how to exclude these.