erasableSyntaxOnly: support commonjs require/exports in .cts files

🔍 Search Terms

cts export

✅ Viability Checklist

• This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
• This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
• This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
• This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
• This isn't a request to add a new utility type: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/No-New-Utility-Types
• This feature would agree with the rest of our Design Goals: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Design-Goals

⭐ Suggestion

Right now i can write (with type:module and allowJs:true):

module.cjs

module.exports.foo = 123;

index.ts

import { foo } from "./module.cjs"

and TypeScript correctly infers the type of the export foo (of course, it can have jsdoc types etc etc). Inside the .cjs file TS also correctly types result of require() calls.

However, if i do

module.cts

module.exports.foo = 123;

This no longer works. .cts file currently is supposed to have ESM style imports/exports that get transpiled to something.

However, such module.cts work perfectly fine with the node with type stripping - the types are stripped and the remaining code is processed as commonjs module (when package.json has type:module).

Suggestion - at least when erasableSyntaxOnly: true is specified, allow commonjs require/exports processing in .cts files, same as it happens in .cjs

📃 Motivating Example

This allows use of .cts files when escape from ESM to CJS is required in a project (for example, require() is needed to have conditional sync imports - yes, createRequire can be used in some cases, but not always).

It provides easier path to adopt typescript for node.js code when gradually converting existing codebases.

💻 Use Cases

1. What do you want to use this for?

to run .cts files directly in node with type stripping.

3. What shortcomings exist with current approaches?

we are forced to use .cjs with jsdoc type annotations, can't use .cts.

5. What workarounds are you using in the meantime?

using .cjs with type annotations.