Add explicit dependency on `@types/unist`

[GuiltyDolphin]

Initial checklist

• [X] I read the support docs
• [X] I read the contributing guide
• [X] I agree to follow the code of conduct
• [X] I searched issues and couldn’t find anything (or linked relevant results below)
• [X] If applicable, I’ve added docs and tests

Description of changes

This PR adds the latest version of @types/unist an explicit dependency (as we import from it directly).

Edit: I notice in the description that dependency on @types/unist is suggested for projects using typescript - is there a particular downside to depending on it directly here?

[GuiltyDolphin]

cc @wooorm @remcohaszing @ChristianMurphy

Should I bump unified's (patch?) version number too, so the change in typing doesn't affect packages depending on the old system?

[GuiltyDolphin]

Btw @ChristianMurphy @wooorm I'm working through the main unified packages to update @types/unist to the latest version. Because it is (technically) a breaking change, updating forces us to make sure we aren't expecting types in the old format, and for going forwards.

I've done a few repos (for the most part, the code doesn't need changing, just the dependencies), but I want to check with you both that I'm doing the correct thing before I go ahead with the others.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #146 (1341582) into main (730c4ff) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #146   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            1         1           
  Lines          452       452           
=========================================
  Hits           452       452           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 730c4ff...1341582. Read the comment docs.

[ChristianMurphy]

Btw @ChristianMurphy @wooorm I'm working through the main unified packages to update @types/unist to the latest version. Because it is (technically) a breaking change, updating forces us to make sure we aren't expecting types in the old format, and for going forwards.

I've done a few repos (for the most part, the code doesn't need changing, just the dependencies), but I want to check with you both that I'm doing the correct thing before I go ahead with the others.

Thanks @GuiltyDolphin! In general it is worth checking, looking for breaking changes. We try to keep version ranges wide, for example ^2.0.0 rather than ^2.1.3 for example. Which means not many repos will need their package.json updated, but a few may need their test suite or typings adjusted.

[GuiltyDolphin]

Alright! I'll keep checking through then, but without updating version numbers and just make sure that typings are okay for the latest version of @types/unist. It looks like we're mostly okay though, not too many packages are making assumptions about extra keys on Node. 😄

[github-actions[bot]]

Hi! This was closed. Team: If this was merged, please describe when this is likely to be released. Otherwise, please add one of the no/* labels.