Importing lodash in a Typescript project rises an editor error

I’m trying to use lodash inside a Typescript, but so far I have been unable to do so. The main issue seems to be related to Typescript typing system.

dependencies: lodash@4.17.5 @types/lodash@4.14.104

Error: Property 'any lodash property' does not exist on type 'LoDashStatic'.

• I try to uninstall lodash, and install typing module first, but I did not solve the issue.
• I try import * as _ from 'lodash' and import _ from 'lodash'. Neither solves the error.
• Using import * as _ from 'lodash' does not even run the code.
• Using import _ from 'lodash' does run the code, but the error still in the editor.

I also notice that there is no errors in the console when running the application. I don’t know if that’s by design, but it should say something.

[kylecordes]

@michaeljota Yes now I see. The editor shows a red mark because it does not recognize the lodash import for TypeScript. Adding the types does not work; it just shifts the error to the left portion of the import. To get good results, with the style of importing individual operators, I had to:

• Switch to using lodash-es (add the NPM dependency, and change the import)
• also import @types/lodash-es

you can see it in use here:

https://stackblitz.com/edit/github-av3nlg?file=src/app/reddit-search/reddit-image-search.service.ts

While unfortunate, I don’t know of a way to avoid it for this. I think there is a chasm in thinking between two different groups of NPM package creators

• One group is accustomed to newer packages, like the way Angular is packaged. With this style of packaging, the goal is to have just a single package which provides whatever common bundle and language level variance are needed. Angular calls this the Angular Package Format, but prior to Angular some other package creators have had similar goals.
• Another group sees NPM as primarily, by default, about CommonJS/ES5 code; and treats anything other than that is a special case, requiring a special, different package name. In this case, lodash-es instead of lodash.

I hope the newer style gains popularity.

[seveves]

Please see my comment in #338 … you can use lodash-es instead.