[@types/oracledb] BindDefinition does not accept constants of type DBType

[dhrumit9]

Description

In version 6.2.3 of @types/oracledb, the constants were retyped as DBType instead of number. With that change, the BindParameter interface was also updated to accept the new type in it's type parameter.

But, the BindDefinition interface is still not updated to accept the new types and still expects a number constant. This breaks the application in build step and throws type error shown below.

Type '{ type: OracleDB.DbType & { num: 2010; name: "DB_TYPE_NUMBER"; columnTypeName: "NUMBER"; oraTypeNum: 2; bufferSizeFactor: 22; }; }' is not assignable to type 'BindDefinition'.
        Types of property 'type' are incompatible.
          Type 'DbType & { num: 2010; name: "DB_TYPE_NUMBER"; columnTypeName: "NUMBER"; oraTypeNum: 2; bufferSizeFactor: 22; }' is not assignable to type 'number | undefined'.ts(2322)

Existing Types

• BindParameter

  interface BindParamter {
      /* Rest of the properties */
      type?: DbType | number | string | undefined;
  }

• BindDefinition

  interface BindDefinition {
      /* Rest of the properties */
      type?: number | undefined;
  }

Expected Type

• BindDefinition

  interface BindDefinition {
      /* Rest of the properties */
      type?: DBType | number | undefined;
  }

[typescript-bot]

Thanks for the discussion about "oracledb", some useful links for everyone:

• npm
• DT
• Related discussions

Pinging the DT module owners: @connorjayfitzgerald, @dannyb648, @jacobwheale.

[dannyb648]

Thansk @dhrumit9 - Another incident which was caused by someone releasing these changes without the proper process. I'll look at a patch for 6.2.4 and this fix will be in 6.3.0 aswell

[dhrumit9]

@dannyb648 Thanks for the prompt reply. Looking forward to the 6.2.4 patch as this just broke our builds.
[Marking the discussion as resolved]

[dhrumit9]

Hi @dannyb648, the issue still persists on v6.3.0 and v6.4.0. The BindDefinition interface still does not accept the DBType constant.

[dannyb648]

Im guessing this is what we mean here - this full interface was missing the DbType value as a type for type?

[dhrumit9]

Yes, that was missing

[dannyb648]

Cool - ill ask Connor to review and get us moving into prod

[dhrumit9]

Found some more places to fix the same issue. Have added the references in the PR.

[dannyb648]

Thanks - ill update them in a mo

[Anonymous4078]

[dhrumit9]

Well, at least he is trying to fix them, unlike you who approved breaking changes and created this mess in the first place.

[dannyb648]

#69402 Proposed fix for this issue on 6.4.x line - will backport if @dhrumit9 is happy

[dhrumit9]

Thanks, I will check the PR soon. And backport to 6.3.x would be nice as well because that version is also broken.

[SudevAtST]

@dannyb648 Can you please merge the PR #69402 to resolve this issue?

[dhrumit9]

Closing this as the PR is merged. (#69402)