Node types can be used in any package

[timfish]

Steps to Reproduce

Go into any file in @sentry/utils and add a reference to global.process.version and no error is reported during TypeScript compilation.

But why?

Following the definitions in vscode, I suspect this is due to @types/node in the root node_modules. TypeScript loads everything in @types/* automatically and appears to use node module resolution traversal.

Solutions?

If I remove @types/node from the root package.json the package is remains there due to hoisting but the version changes to v17 rather than the current 10.17.56 which is even worse. We may be able to work around this via the yarn workspace nohoist option.

We may be able to improve the situation by adding global to the no-restricted-globals eslint rule.

[timfish]

Well nohoist doesn't work.

TypeScript now picks up node types from:
./node_modules/@types/accepts/node_modules/@types/node/globals.global.d.ts

It looks like this can be fixed via tsconfig.json with an empty array for types:

  "compilerOptions": {
    "types": []
  }

But much like #5816, this should really be the default and node types should be enabled only where they're required, rather than selectively disabled for packages where they're not required.

Obviously this is all complicated by the fact that ts-node defaults to tsconfig.json and all scripts use node.js functionality.

[lforst]

We can configure an environment via eslint: https://eslint.org/docs/latest/user-guide/configuring/language-options Maybe shared-node-browser works for us?

We would then also have to turn on the no-undef rule that is turned off with typescript-eslint-recommended: typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint#4580 (comment)

[lforst]

Also if our tsconfigs cause problems, we can always shuffle them around or pass the --project flag to ts-node

[mydea]

Why was this issue closed?

While we think it would be helpful to solve this issue, we're busy with a lot of other tasks at the moment.
Therefore, this issue is not a priority for us at this time.
If you still want to see this resolved, please consider opening a PR for it - we're always happy to review them.

Please feel free to leave a comment if you think this issue should be reopened.