Skip to content

Conversation

@ItsChaceD
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@ItsChaceD ItsChaceD requested a review from a team November 19, 2025 14:57
plugin/README.md Outdated
Comment on lines 1071 to 1085
<a href="#point">Point</a> geometry object.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7946#section-3.1.2

| Prop | Type | Description |
| ----------------- | --------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- |
| **`type`** | <code>'<a href="#point">Point</a>'</code> | Specifies the type of GeoJSON object. |
| **`coordinates`** | <code><a href="#position">Position</a></code> | |


#### Position

| Prop | Type | Description |
| ------------ | ------------------- | ----------- |
| **`line`** | <code>number</code> | &gt;= 1 |
| **`column`** | <code>number</code> | &gt;= 0 |
Copy link
Contributor

@OS-pedrogustavobilro OS-pedrogustavobilro Nov 20, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, I think this is something that has resurfaced, that was originally fixed by #89. Perhaps the script I added no longer works with these updated dependencies?

// 1. check npm install path
const geojsonPathNpm = path.resolve('../node_modules/@types/geojson');
if (fs.existsSync(geojsonPath)) {
if (fs.existsSync(geojsonPathNpm)) {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@OS-pedrogustavobilro This was the problem - just in my particular case.

I had accidentally ran npm install instead of pnpm install, so I had to two copies of @types/geojson, one in the NPM location and another in the PNPM location.

The other problem with the script (which i'm not sure is worth fixing right now), is that it will check once for either location. So in my case, before fixing the script, it was finding and removing the PNPM location, but not the NPM one.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah I see, makes sense. Thanks for looking into this!

Yeah the checking only of the locations at should be fine I think, even if both are installed, only one ends up getting used. It's more about which one should be checked I guess. But anyway yeah I don't think we need to look into it now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants