Allow to override a property type #1295
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The goal of OverloadOf<> is to have two almost identical structures where the only difference is the optionality of fields. This allows code generators to produce converters between a type and its overloaded sibling.
Allowing type changes basically prevents generation of these converters and makes this behavior useless.
I may be missing something though, as I haven't spent time on this and the Java client doesn't yet have these converters.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm in favor but don't know if there are consequences for strongly typed langs. Deferring to @swallez here :)
| // but let's address it when it will happen | ||
| if (!deepEqual(readProperty.type, property.type)) { | ||
|
|
||
| if (property.type.kind === 'union_of' && property.type.items.some(contains(readProperty.type))) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will this allow arbitrary unions as long as one of its members is the read property, e.g. ReadFoo | Bar?
Should we rather test that all unwrap'ed union items are readProperty.type?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This allows the read property to be a single element of the parent union.
Eg:
export class Foo {
bar: string | string[]
}
export class FooRead implements OverloadOf<Foo> {
bar: string[]
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah right, I didn't read the relation check in the right direction.
As titled.
Related: #1283