-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 173
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
🚀 Feature: Pass parameters as an object #728
Comments
@dokgu, thanks for raising this issue! 🙏🏼 I'm going to move this to the sdk-generator repo since it would apply to the sdk-for-web too. |
the suggested type type CreateMembershipProps = {
// ...
email: string | undefined;
// ...
}
createMembership({...}) // Type-Error, `email` is missing
createMembership({..., email: undefined }) // OK should be type CreateMembershipProps = {
// ...
email?: string
// ...
}
createMembership({...}) // OK
createMembership({..., email: undefined }) // OK The former demands a value, either a string or an explicit undefined, the latter does not. The latter gets auto-expanded to |
I'll attach my comment from the discord verbatim: the experience using the js (node and web) api is quite painful, there are very obvious C# (and similar) influences in the api to the aggressive detriment of the user experince.. Consider this api: db.createRelationshipAttribute(
"<id>",
"<id>",
"<id>",
RelationshipType.OneToMany,
false,
"",
"",
RelationMutate.Cascade,
) you can't understand anything reading this, why is the api not the more standard db.createRelationshipAttribute({
databaseId: "<id>",
parentCollectionId: "<id>",
childCollectionId: "<id>",
type: RelationshipType.OneToMany,
required: false,
// parentKey?: "",
// childKey?: "",
onDelete: RelationMutate.Cascade,
}) or creating namespaced clients const Parent = new Collection(parentCollection) // <- Models.Collection
Parent.createRelationAttribute({
to: "<id>",
type: RelationshipType.OneToMany
}) or even follow the cross-reference style of const Parent = new Collection(parentCollection) // <- Models.Collection
const Child = new Collection(childCollection)
Parent.addRelation(Child, {
type: RelationshipType.OneToMany
}) This is ofc before the lack of proper types and the recommendation of hard casting results. I know Appwrite is massive, like MASSIVE massive, both internally and externally with the plethora of sdks, but I really wish the api was more ergonomic |
Currently calling the following function : storage.getFilePreview(
bucketId, // Required
fileId, // Required
undefined, // width (optional)
undefined, // height (optional)
undefined, // gravity (optional)
undefined, // quality (optional)
undefined, // borderWidth (optional)
undefined, // borderColor (optional)
undefined, // borderRadius (optional)
undefined, // opacity (optional)
undefined, // rotation (optional)
undefined, // background (optional)
'webp' // output (the only optional parameter you want to set)
); I really hope this issue gets implemented soon to reduce the complexity of the usage of the web sdk |
Hi @stnguyen90 , Do you think this should be done? Related discord message - https://discordapp.com/channels/564160730845151244/636852860709240842/1263135518871388212 cc: @ajnart |
Cross-posting Steven's discord answer here :
|
Because the sdk is generated, keep the old and add the new. If packed correctly the unused sdk should treeshake out |
I do think this is a terrible reason not to do it though - I agree that it is a big breaking change but DX is king for products like Appwrite, if DX is bad developers will look elsewhere. This could be part of a major version upgrade, right now we're at Another thing to point out is regarding the utility class or method to make the preview method simpler rather than updating all methods - does this mean the methods are inconsistently implemented? That would be a terrible DX if I'm being honest. We should implement methods in a consistent manner so developers won't get tripped up by something unexpected simply because one method is used a different way than the rest. |
I couldn't agree more, I checked out the supabase file upload, their approach made sense,I tried to understand why this was not the case with Appwrite and that's how I ended up on this issue |
+1 |
🔖 Feature description
Pass the parameters as an object - something like:
That way, developers can supply the parameters in any order and it wouldn't break anything and won't have to deal with parameter order gymnastics. I believe Appwrite is written in PHP but I'm sure something like this is also possible.
🎤 Pitch
I was upgrading my SDKs and I was looking at the breaking changes for
createMembership()
and it's fine thaturl
is now optional but it's frustrating to keep having to check for the order of the parameters. For instance, on version 9.0.0, the order isbut on version 11.0.0 the order of parameters got switched all over:
Also, now I have to supply a bunch of
undefined
parameters just to get to theurl
towards the very end.I didn't get any indication that something was wrong because Typescript just validates the types and
email
,userId
, andurl
are all a bunch ofstring | undefined
types so switching them around doesn't trigger any warnings from Typescript.👀 Have you spent some time to check if this issue has been raised before?
🏢 Have you read the Code of Conduct?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: