chore(shared,types,clerk-react,vue): Share hook return types

[wobsoriano]

Description

This PR moves the hook return types from @clerk/clerk-react and @clerk/shared to @clerk/types to be used with @clerk/vue's composables.

See PR comment for reference.

Note: The useOrganization() and useOrganizationList() hook return types are not included since pagination is not yet implemented in @clerk/vue.

Resolves ECO-231

Checklist

• pnpm test runs as expected.
• pnpm build runs as expected.
• (If applicable) JSDoc comments have been added or updated for any package exports
• (If applicable) Documentation has been updated

Type of change

• 🐛 Bug fix
• 🌟 New feature
• 🔨 Breaking change
• 📖 Refactoring / dependency upgrade / documentation
• other:

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: fca77a3

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 22 packages

Name	Type
@clerk/clerk-react	Patch
@clerk/shared	Patch
@clerk/types	Patch
@clerk/vue	Patch
@clerk/chrome-extension	Patch
@clerk/elements	Patch
@clerk/clerk-expo	Patch
@clerk/nextjs	Patch
@clerk/remix	Patch
@clerk/tanstack-start	Patch
@clerk/astro	Patch
@clerk/backend	Patch
@clerk/clerk-js	Patch
@clerk/expo-passkeys	Patch
@clerk/express	Patch
@clerk/fastify	Patch
@clerk/nuxt	Patch
@clerk/clerk-sdk-node	Patch
@clerk/testing	Patch
@clerk/ui	Patch
@clerk/localizations	Patch
@clerk/themes	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[panteliselef]

In same cases we might need to only edit only types for react and not vue. For example, adding experimental features, which usually are only implemented for the react hooks. Do you think this PR will make that process harder ? If not this move is reasonable.

[wobsoriano]

In same cases we might need to only edit only types for react and not vue. For example, adding experimental features, which usually are only implemented for the react hooks. Do you think this PR will make that process harder ? If not this move is reasonable.

Good question! I think we have 2 approaches in case of experimental features:

1. Say an experimental property in the UseSessionListReturn hook for example:

export type UseSessionListReturn =
  | {
      isLoaded: false;
      sessions: undefined;
      setActive: undefined;
      __experimental_test: undefined
    }
  | {
      isLoaded: true;
      sessions: SessionResource[];
      setActive: SetActive;
      __experimental_test: true
    };

We can keep this in @clerk/types, then in @clerk/vue we can use the utility type we have that omits without union flattening

import type { Without } from '@clerk/types'

type type VueUseSessionListReturn = Without<UseSessionListReturn, '__experimental'>

The only problem I can see with this is that @clerk/vue will also need to be updated when adding @clerk/clerk-react experimental features

2. If it can't be done with number 1, then probably rewrite the hook return type in @clerk/clerk-react with the experimental flag for example 🤷

What do you think?

[panteliselef]

Probably i'd just expands the types for react only

[wobsoriano]

Probably i'd just expands the types for react only

sounds good to me