__nullable__ vs Type.Optional

[daedalus28]

Why does prismabox generate types with __nullable__ instead of just Type.Optional? I see there is generator for Type.Optional, but it isn't being used.

For a model with a field like this:

name String?

I am getting this:

name: __nullable__(Type.String({ additionalProperties: false })),

Where as I would expect

name: Type.Optional(Type.String()),

Also - this might be a separate issue, by why would prismabox add { additionalProperties: false } to scalar values like strings and numbers?

[m1212e]

Because prisma in some scenarios allows null OR undefined as types where optional only allows for undefined/is reflected as undefined in TS types

[m1212e]

Regarding the second aspect: This roots from calling the options generator function which injects this based on the global setting. Since this causes no harm its just there and I saved myself the time and complexity of implemention logic to check the necessity

[daedalus28]

That's fair. For my use case, I'll just transform the output (or remap __nullable__).

For additionalProperties on scalars, it seems like you already have a method that knows when it's a primitive value. Am I right that it's just a small change here to transform options?

prismabox/src/generators/primitiveField.ts

Lines 30 to 31 in 7a06124

	}) {
	if (["Int", "BigInt"].includes(fieldType)) {

E.g. something like this?:

let optionsObject = JSON.parse(options)
delete optionsObject.additionalProperties
options = JSON.stringify(optionsObject)

I think it might be a real bug because it's included for json columns - so Type.Any() with additionalProperties:false doesn't make any sense.

[daedalus28]

@m1212e would you be open to a PR with my suggested change?

[m1212e]

True, I think this would work, thats perfectly fine to do imo. I'd be happy to review a PR!

[daedalus28]

Here you go:

#35

[daedalus28]

It occurs to me that to properly close this issue, we should probably add some documentation with your explanation about __nullable__ vs Type.Optional.

[daedalus28]

It occurs to me that to properly close this issue, we should probably add some documentation with your explanation about __nullable__ vs Type.Optional.

Updated.

[bmakan]

One spect that __nullable__ removes from Type.Optional is "can be omitted". This is quite annoying when using these types directly in Elysia's type guards.

E.g.:

const user = t.Object({
    name: t.String(),
    age: t.Optional(t.String()),
});

Requires:

{
    "name": "John",
    "age": null
}

instead of

{
    "name": "John"
}