chore(deps): bump expect-type to v1

[mmkal]

Description

Please don't delete this checklist! Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following:

• [ ] It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. If the feature is substantial or introduces breaking changes without a discussion, PR might be closed. no issue for this one
• [ ] Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.
• [ ] Please, don't make changes to pnpm-lock.yaml unless you introduce a new test example.

Tests

• Run the tests with pnpm test:ci.

Documentation

• If you introduce new functionality, document it. You can run documentation with pnpm run docs command.

Changesets

• Changes in changelog are generated from PR name. Please, make sure that it explains your changes in an understandable manner. Please, prefix changeset messages with feat:, fix:, perf:, docs:, or chore:.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for vitest-dev ready!

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	28512b2
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/vitest-dev/deploys/6706d4629519ae0008bf991f
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-6349--vitest-dev.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[mmkal]

@sheremet-va just testing out whether the latest expect-type changes are safe to release as v0.20.0, which will likely become v1 rc.

I don't understand the failure though, I can't seem to see any logs associated?

[sheremet-va]

@sheremet-va just testing out whether the latest expect-free changes are safe to release as v0.20.0, which will likely become v1 rc.

I don't understand the failure though, I can't seem to see any logs associated?

It's just flaky. Don't worry.

[mmkal]

@sheremet-va oh, interesting, I noticed that there's actually a change to LICENSE.md locally, some automated process picked up one what I inadvertently did which is move it from devDependencies to dependencies.

Is there a reason it's currently bundled rather than a regular dependency? If it's something about how expect-type is set up, I would be open to addressing any issues you might have found, I think since it is a "prod" dependency it'd be better if it's listed that way.

[sheremet-va]

Is there a reason it's currently bundled rather than a regular dependency?

I don't really remember why. Maybe it's an artifact from the time we tried - I think we had to re-implement something. Right now I think it's just re-exported.

I think since it is a "prod" dependency it'd be better if it's listed that way.

Not sure about this argument - what is a "prod" dependency here and why is it better to list "prod" dependencies? I am fine with moving expect-type to dependencies, but I don't understand the argument you are trying to make here specifically.

[mmkal]

Yeah I should have said regular rather than prod. Just meant that it's actually part of vitest rather than a build/test/lint tool in this case. I'll do some testing to see if I hit any issues- can try arethetypewrong. I'll mark as ready/ ping you when ready.

[mmkal]

@sheremet-va I think this is ready. I did a sneaky pkg-pr-new release from my fork, so feel free to try it out: pnpm add https://pkg.pr.new/mmkal/vitest@c05bcfe. I think it's good to go.

[sheremet-va]

Merged in #6654

Thank you for the new version!

[mmkal]

The other part of this PR was moving it to a regular dependency. I can open a new one which does only that. It's better that way because it allows for minor changes, security fixes (even if they're unlikely), and advanced users could even fully customise their version if they like (overrides, pnpmfile, etc.).

Happy to see that the version was bumped by renovate but I still think it should be moved to dependencies. I'll create another PR that does just the move and we can discuss there if there are any reasons not to.