add typing to most examples.

[UrielCh]

those change add typing to most examples.

[mhdawson]

I'm not sure we want to add types to all of the examples, although I could see some examples with types would be good.

@UrielCh just wondering on your maint maint motiviation in terms of adding the types? For people using TypeScript, or something else?

[UrielCh]

In this case, having TypeScript typings for all the samples makes it easier to find examples of how to implement certain things.

By adding types, I noticed in the sample that:

• node-addon-examples/src/1-getting-started/6_object_wrap/napi

and

• node-addon-examples/src/1-getting-started/6_object_wrap/nan
• node-addon-examples/src/1-getting-started/6_object_wrap/node-addon-api

do not implements the same binding.

export class MyObject{
    public value: number;
    
    constructor(num: number);
    public plusOne(): number;
    public multiply(num?: number): MyObject;
}

Vs

export declare class MyObject{
    constructor(num: number);
    public value(): number;
    public plusOne(): number;
    public multiply(num?: number): MyObject;
}

value vs value()

By the way I did not find any sample of binding a static method from a object.

I'm trying to port opencv4nodejs to N-API as @u4/opencv4nodejs

---

update:

this issue is now addressed by the PR #539

[UrielCh]

other ... strange code in src/2-js-to-native-conversion/object-wrap-demo/node-addon-api with the extra typing:

the binding.js is wrapper to a native class: ObjectWrapDemo

but by adding a typing the binding.js can be simply replace by a typing.

original:

const addon = require('../build/Release/object-wrap-demo-native');
function ObjectWrapDemo(name) {
    this.greet = function(str) {
        return _addonInstance.greet(str);
    }

    var _addonInstance = new addon.ObjectWrapDemo(name);
}

module.exports = ObjectWrapDemo;

have the same effect that:

/**
 * @type {import('./type')}
 */
const addon = require('../build/Release/object-wrap-demo-native');

module.exports = addon.ObjectWrapDemo;

once the typing:

export class ObjectWrapDemo {
    constructor(name: string);
    /**
     * return a string like "Hello, ${str}\nI am ${name}\n"
     * @param str greeting string
     */
    greet(str: string): string;
}

is added.

[mhdawson]

We discusssed in the node-api team meeting today and the consensus seems to be that adding the jsdoc/types info is not helpfull and might distract from the example itself.

Instead working on adding additional typescript examples or improving the existing typescript example - https://github.com/nodejs/node-addon-examples/tree/main/src/8-tooling/typescript_with_addon/node-addon-api would would be beneficial. Maybe even using the new experimental feature in Node.js to strip out types and run typescript directly.

[UrielCh]

Adding a sample to show how to use typing, and how to use experimental TS support in nodeJS 22+, why not, but what code should I implement in the Native code ?

a simple return "hello World" ? a class ?

Each sample adds some native code complexity.

---

Can you please check my PR: https://github.com/nodejs/node-addon-examples/pull/539

The 3 code samples should implement the same interface but thy do not, and I notice that by adding typing to this sample.

[legendecas]

Instead working on adding additional typescript examples or improving the existing typescript example - https://github.com/nodejs/node-addon-examples/tree/main/src/8-tooling/typescript_with_addon/node-addon-api would would be beneficial. Maybe even using the new experimental feature in Node.js to strip out types and run typescript directly.

Adding a sample to show how to use typing, and how to use experimental TS support in nodeJS 22+, why not, but what code should I implement in the Native code ?

The suggestion was that updating the existing typescript example to be how the workflow is like, using tsc, or using the type stripping flag, and how to provide type information for an addon .node file.

I don't think this needs to update the native code.