Rewrite with TypeScript & move to ESM

[LitoMore]

Changes

• Rewrite with TypeScript, resolves #15
• Move to ESM
• Use GitHub Actions
• Drop .travis.yml
• Use c8 instead of nyc
• Bump all dependencies to latest
• Remove supportsHyperlink.stdout and supportsHyperlink.stderr
  • Note: Users can easy implement this API, we could remove it
• Add missing tests
  • Note: There is one uncovered branch, that requires mock process.env, but the code to execute is in supports-color

[sindresorhus]

I don't really see the point of rewriting such a simple package in TS.

[LitoMore]

I noticed the TypeScript definition issue https://github.com/chalk/supports-color/pull/138 while writing this pull request.

I actually solved some potential problems while I was writing this pull request.

For example the parseVersion function:

function parseVersion(versionString) {
    if (/^\d{3,4}$/.test(versionString)) {
        // Env var doesn't always use dots. example: 4601 => 46.1.0
        const m = /(\d{1,2})(\d{2})/.exec(versionString);
        return {
            major: 0,
            minor: parseInt(m[1], 10),
            patch: parseInt(m[2], 10)
        };
    }

    const versions = (versionString || '').split('.').map(n => parseInt(n, 10));
    return {
        major: versions[0],
        minor: versions[1],
        patch: versions[2]
    };
}

We are accessing its regex result with m[1], the m is possibly null.

Although we have /^\d{3,4}$/.test(versionString) condition to make sure the /(\d{1,2})(\d{2})/.exec(versionString) always have result. But someone else might inadvertently make things go wrong here.

TypeScript can help us to avoid lots of theses kinds of errors.

But if you insist you don't need TypeScript, I can switch back to JavaScript. That's up to you.

[sindresorhus]

Let's see what James thinks. It's his repo after all.

[voxpelli]

I made a simpler alternative in #21 as I agree with @sindresorhus that TS is overkill for a module like this and simply adding some JSDoc comments can achieve full strict typing with existing code.

[LitoMore]

@voxpelli Wow. Thanks.

[LitoMore]

Closing in favor of #21.