New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix(types): support union in CreationAttributes #14146
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, can we also cherry-pick some other issues from the release log of v6 before we do the new release?
I'd prefer to do that in a separate PR but we can cancel the release of this one and merge the other one right afterwards (or just let both be published) :) I'll do another small v7 PR that can be cherry-picked first, then open the cherry pick PR |
Canceling the release and merging the other right afterward would have my preference |
PR I'd like to merge and cherry-pick in v6 before merging this one: #14147 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you so much.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good to merge :)
This is going to cause an extra release but I'll merge this one because it's been 4 days and I haven't cherry-picked the other PRs yet, so might as well release this one while I work on the other ones |
🎉 This PR is included in version 6.16.3 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Pull Request Checklist
yarn test
oryarn test-DIALECT
pass with this change (including linting)?Description Of Change
PR #13909 introduced a change where creation attributes that accept
undefined
were also as beingoptional
in typings.The way this change was implemented is incompatible with TS unions and broke with the following example #14129
closes #14129
I'm bringing this change in v6 only for backward compatibility. I will bring a different solution in v7, see #14091 (comment) for more