docs(usage): type definitions aren't strictly necessary

[fzn0x]

type definitions aren't strictly necessary here

[netlify[bot]]

✅ Deploy Preview for fakerjs ready!

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	22b401492cd5cca95621153ba7f071aff2139aa5
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/fakerjs/deploys/662675db58f59800088bc238
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2840.fakerjs.dev
📱 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.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 99.96%. Comparing base (b754dc6) to head (22b4014).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## next #2840 +/- ## ======================================== Coverage 99.95% 99.96% ======================================== Files 2973 2973 Lines 212613 212613 Branches 943 601 -342 ======================================== + Hits 212510 212529 +19 + Misses 103 84 -19 ``` [see 2 files with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/faker-js/faker/pull/2840/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=faker-js)

[ST-DDT]

type definitions aren't strictly necessary here

They might not be necessary there, but we have them there to reduce the cognitive load from the reader to guess what the method/field is supposed to do/return.

See also:

• https://typescript-eslint.io/rules/explicit-function-return-type/

What is your idea/intention with removing those (aka Why)?

[fzn0x]

type definitions aren't strictly necessary here

They might not be necessary there, but we have them there to reduce the cognitive load from the reader to guess what the method/field is supposed to do/return.

See also:

• https://typescript-eslint.io/rules/explicit-function-return-type/

What is your idea/intention with removing those (aka Why)?

Typings still included without specifying Users.

[fzn0x]

Improve the example for the Users type definition, or remove it altogether to allow users to explore the usage independently without encountering errors after choosing ESM or CJS.

[ST-DDT]

So the issue here is that the example on the readme uses a type that isnt specified anywhere on that page.

[matthewmayer]

Maybe remove "export" too? If it's just a standalone example.

[ST-DDT]

Maybe remove "export" too? If it's just a standalone example.

I'm undecided on that. Maybe a little bit on the keep it part because I hope this pushes the users to reuse their faker methods and it slightly catches more attention.