feat(cloudflare): Support Cloudflare types v5 & newer wrangler versions#22180
Merged
Conversation
JPeer264
requested review from
andreiborza and
mydea
and removed request for
a team
Member
Author
|
Put into draft as it seems |
JPeer264
force-pushed
the
jp/cloudflare-types-5
branch
from
6b77f35 to
f676617
Compare
Contributor
size-limit report 📦
|
JPeer264
requested review from
a team,
andreiborza,
isaacs and
mydea
and removed request for
a team
andreiborza
approved these changes
Jul 13, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
closes #22178
closes JS-2999
I updated the types for our dev packages, but kept the tests on the older version to cross-check compatibility as well for older versions.
In the past I wanted to keep the oldest version in here to not break something by accident, but if we do that, we might miss on potential new features/options, such as the new
step.dooption, which we wouldn't have passed along. So IMO it is better to keep it latest here and test against old and new versions insteadThere are new types within the
ExecutionContext, to support older versions where onlywaitUntilandpassThroughOnExceptionwere required and the newer one which has more types in it,ExecutionContextCompatwas created, that picks the types which were needed before and adds the newerExecutionContextas well