Fix: Accessing PropTypes via React package is deprecated

[muralikrishna8]

When using the React-^15.3.2 version it is giving a warning message.

Added prop-types package and accessing the PropTypes from this package.

[zenoamaro]

Thanks a lot for the contribution. We're in feature freeze at the moment, but we are definitely considering this for next release.

[muralikrishna8]

Thanks 👍

[btoueg]

@muralikrishna8 You forgot to change this: https://github.com/muralikrishna8/react-quill/blob/af375348b1e2660725f23cd6bb33e3ece65e9448/src/component.js#L82

[muralikrishna8]

@btoueg I've changed that file.

[btoueg]

@zenoamaro any chance this can be merged in the near future? It's a fairly innocuous change and would help our team upgrade to react 15.5. Thanks!

[alexkrolick]

@zenoamaro Do you think we should migrate to create-react-class and prop-types for 1.0.0 given the timing?

For everyone else:

• This is just a deprecation warning; the API is still there until React 16. I understand some CI systems complain about any console.error, but if that is not a constraint you can still upgrade.
• The reason we are holding back for now (pending discussion) is to avoid introducing a hard dependency that would normally be satisfied by a peer dependency (React > 0.14).

[Hillgren]

'We're in feature freeze at the moment'

When do you think the next release will be? :)

[alexkrolick]

• 1.0.0 will be soon, as we haven't seen many fresh bug reports lately
• React is downgrading the deprecation errors to warnings for anyone affected by CI failing on console.error: Downgrade deprecation warnings from errors to warnings facebook/react#9650

[alexkrolick]

We can work on this after #212. Thanks for your patience!

[mikecousins]

Nice work on the v1 release guys! Can we get this one in now?

[alexkrolick]

Thanks for the contribution. Based on the usage docs for prop-types there are a few changes needed:

• prop-types belongs in dependencies, not devDependencies. https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#devdependencies
• It should also be marked as external in Webpack: https://github.com/facebook/prop-types#how-to-depend-on-this-package
• The compatible React peerDependencies must change to ^0.14.9 || ^15.3.0
• The custom validators that depend on PropTypes must be updated to use the new module: https://github.com/zenoamaro/react-quill/blob/master/src/component.js#L88

[muralikrishna8]

The custom validators that depend on PropTypes must be updated to use the new module: https://github.com/zenoamaro/react-quill/blob/master/src/component.js#L88

I think React.children.only will give the only child it has, otherwise it'll throw an error. In this case if we have children then only we are verifying it should have only one child and it should not be a textarea. So this doesn't change with the PropTypes I guess.
Correct me if my understanding is wrong.

[alexkrolick]

Thanks for the contribution. Based on the usage docs for prop-types there are a few changes needed:

• prop-types belongs in dependencies, not devDependencies. https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#devdependencies
• It should also be marked as external in Webpack: https://github.com/facebook/prop-types#how-to-depend-on-this-package
• The compatible React peerDependencies must change to ^0.14.9 || ^15.3.0
• The custom validators that depend on PropTypes must be updated to use the new module: https://github.com/zenoamaro/react-quill/blob/master/src/component.js#L88

[haxxxton]

@muralikrishna8, would you mind also fixing the

Accessing factories like React.DOM.div has been deprecated and will be removed in v16.0+. Use the react-dom-factories package instead.  Version 1.0 provides a drop-in replacement. For more info, see https://fb.me/react-dom-factories

warning with this PR too?

I understand that the PR was originally specifically for PropTypes on React package, but it looks like you've put a lot of extra work in, so what's one more thing right ;)?

[alexkrolick]

Closing in favor of #242 which incorporates these changes as well as @haxxxton's suggestion.

Thanks!