Could you share your use case for needing access to SidebarEntry — it’s an internal type, so I’d like to learn where you find you’re needing to interact with these objects and need the type. (Might help us improve the API in more fundamental ways.)

Depending on the use case, it may also already be accessible using both ComponentProps or StarlightRouteData types.

I'm building a sidebar based on data, and my code looks a bit like this:

  // Build sidebar sections in the order of spec.tags
  const sidebar = spec.tags
    .map((t: any) => {
      const name = t.name;
      return {
        label: name,
        items: groups[name],
      };
    })
    .toSorted((a: SidebarGroup, b: SidebarGroup) => {
      return a.label.localeCompare(b.label);
    });

I had to make the SidebarGroup type. TypeScript/Cursor couldn't find it

I tried again, and TS could find the StarlightRouteData type but nothing for sidebar

Starlight route data exposes many properties, so you would need to cherry-pick the one you need, for example:

import type { StarlightRouteData } from '@astrojs/starlight/route-data';

// This type represents a single entry in the `sidebar` array of the Starlight route data.
type SidebarEntry = StarlightRouteData['sidebar'][number];

Something to note, even if the SidebarEntry type is directly exported like in the PR or grabbed from the Starlight route data, to specifically target SidebarGroup or SidebarLink, you would need at the moment some TypeScript code to extract those types, e.g.:

type SidebarGroup = Extract<SidebarEntry, { type: 'group' }>;
type SidebarLink = Extract<SidebarEntry, { type: 'link' }>;

What do I have to do so that the type is available just like import type { SidebarEntry } from '@astrojs/starlight/' ?

What do I have to do so that the type is available just like import type { SidebarEntry } from '@astrojs/starlight/' ?

By “the type”, do you mean SidebarGroup/SidebarLink? You’d need to export those too.

Ah ok, fixed it 🙏

Would it be OK if we split the type changes into a different PR for discussion? We can get the previously discussed class name change released quickly, but I think we might want some more time to discuss about types. As HiDeoo mentioned, we already expose these types via StarlightRouteData, but there are a lot of interfaces in there, so if we’re going to start exporting things, we probably need to do it systematically, for example to answer questions like:

• Do we export all types?
• Should we document each type?

I wouldn’t want to block the class name change behind that discussion, so separate PRs would be helpful I think.

Would it be OK if we split the type changes into a different PR for discussion?

Going to go ahead and do this so we can get the class name change released.