Dompurify add vendor type

[iisa]

problem: offshoot is not properly building bc the vendor package dompurify has an implicit type.

solution: make shim type file to declare it

acceptance: offshoot cleanly builds

note: 0.2.14-a1

[github-actions]

PR Preview Action v1.1.1
Preview removed because the pull request was closed.
2022-08-05 21:42 UTC

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #94 (f6ba5d7) into main (3831da5) will decrease coverage by 0.11%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #94      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   76.58%   76.46%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          61       61              
  Lines        6726     6726              
  Branches      199      198       -1     
==========================================
- Hits         5151     5143       -8     
- Misses       1567     1575       +8     
  Partials        8        8              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/tiles/item-image.ts	88.39% <0.00%> (-7.15%)	⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[mmcnl]

@iisa I don't understand the backstory on this but LGTM. I do notice that the codecov check failed (https://github.com/internetarchive/iaux-collection-browser/pull/94/checks?check_run_id=7698782961)

[iisa]

hi @mmcnl thanks for the quick CR.

re: coverage drop, I guess adding type context opened up lines to check? here's the diff - nothing I touched https://app.codecov.io/gh/internetarchive/iaux-collection-browser/compare/94/changes

re backstory:
offshoot apparently type checks all ts files that it uses to build and it caught Dompurify as any - blocking @dualcnhq 's latest offshoot MR https://git.archive.org/www/offshoot/-/merge_requests/237

so, this is direct fix for it. and our work around for this

I will take the test hit bc it is out of scope for my debug time and we can work to make up for it in the next rounds. hope that's ok with you.

[mmcnl]

@iisa sure, totally makes sense, thanks for filling me in on your process. I just would want us to not get in a long-term habit of ignoring codecov (or other) CI checks