fix(reduce): change order of reduce overload type definitions

[PrimalZed]

Description: Update overload type definitions of operator reduce so returning type T takes precedence over returning type T[].

Related issue (if exists): #2519

[kwonoj]

probably we may need test cases for this to check if there's no regressions / validate this changes fixes issue. what do you think? @david-driscoll

[david-driscoll]

Yeah we should have two tests. The ones from #2519 should be sufficient. Make sure you assign them to a specific type so that the types match both sides.

const o1: Observable<number[]> = Observable.of([0, 1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6, 7])
    .reduce((acc, value) => acc.concat(value), [])
    .map(numbers => numbers.map(n => n++))

const o2: Observable<number[]> = Observable.of(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
    .reduce((acc, value) => { acc.push(value); return acc; }, [])
    .map(numbers => numbers.map(n => n++))

[david-driscoll]

Once we get a the typings tests in this is gtg

[PrimalZed]

Sorry, I rarely do pull requests on github. I'll check to see how testing works in other pull requests and get this updated.

[rxjs-bot]

	Warnings
⚠️	commit message does not follows conventional change log (1)

(1) : RxJS uses conventional change log to generate changelog automatically. It seems some of commit messages are not following those, please check contributing guideline and update commit messages.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 97.687% when pulling e9be1f4 on PrimalZed:master into bc1e1e5 on ReactiveX:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 97.687% when pulling 5ddb0be on PrimalZed:master into bc1e1e5 on ReactiveX:master.

[david-driscoll]

LGTM @kwonoj ?

[kwonoj]

What'd be release for this? /cc @david-driscoll

[lock]

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.