Łukasz Gandecki

hey @jeremydaly , thanks for all the work. Do you need some help? :) I realize that explaining to someone what needs to be done often takes more time than...

It doesn't? I thought that following code was doing just that. ``` coffeescript changed: (id, fields) -> _.each fields, (value, key) -> changedMappings = _.where(params.mappings, {key: key, reverse: false}) doMapping(id,...

Hey @ArtemGovorov Could you please elaborate in a few sentences what do you mean by this?

Great debugging. I'm not sure what to do about this right away. I looked into this a bit and seems that, luckily, not all exports are getting transpiled in this...

If we decide to do this we need an additional overloaded declaration for when, like so (the order is important apparently): ```typescript function when(f: Promise, ...args: D[]): { thenResolve(response: P):...

Actually, Thinking about it a bit more what I would recommend is wrapping the return with partial https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/utility-types.html#partialt Then I believe we get the best of both worlds. We don't...

If we go with the "partial type" route - breaking tests should catch wrong type definitions or wrong stubs - that should be a valuable feedback and I think it'd...

@mohaalak sorry, I don't understand the question. I see you added two overloaded when definitions as I suggested. Have you figured it out? Or are you concern about something else?...

Ok, I understand what you mean now. I was iterating on what was already there in the typings and was mostly concerned about the promise mismatch. But you are correct,...

Sorry for the troubles caused by a backwards-incompatible change. @natesilva could you please show an example of a function and a test where you would want to resolve something as...