Airplane•3y ago

Schema for Record types

when defining a schema, for s.object() is there a way to restrict the types of values but allow any arbitrary key? e.g. the equivalent of this in typescript:

interface MyInterface {
  [key: string]: number;
}

interface MyInterface {
  [key: string]: number;
}

4 Replies

ballingt•3y ago

Currently you need to use a Map for that with a schema. I can see where you're coming from, in JS the record type is idiomatic. The thinking here is that for supporting other languages down the line, s.object is describing a specific shape while map: s.map(s.string(), s.number()) is for describing a record like this. @Airplane I'd love to hear what you think of trying this, I'd probably call Object.fromEntries(myMap) inside a Convex query function to return an object instead.

AirplaneOP•3y ago

ah I see, that makes sense thanks! Would it also be possible to do

s.union(s.object({
    myKey: s.number()
}), s.map(s.string(), s.number())

s.union(s.object({
    myKey: s.number()
}), s.map(s.string(), s.number())

to create a combination of required properties but also allow for extra ones? At this point my understanding is that schemas are a typescript-only feature, so would doing something like this actually compute the corresponding types?

ian•3y ago

I don't believe this will give you required fields, as the union would allow either {myKey: 3} or {otherKey: 2} or both. you could nest the map inside of an object though: s.object({myKey: s.number(), otherKeys: s.map(s.string(), s.number())})

alexcole•3y ago

Oops, I was late to see this, but @Airplane thanks for the feedback! In TypeScript terms, what you are describing is an index signature. Our schemas don't support them right now, but we could add support in the future. And yeah doing a union of s.map and s.object won't work either because Convex will expect you to either have an object ({}) or a map (new Map).

Schema for Record types

Did you find this page helpful?