8 replies

Has there been any consideration to

Has there been any consideration to adding

v.partial

v.partial

?

The behavior essentially would be

v.object

v.object

but to wrap all children in

v.optional

v.optional

.

My typical use case is something like:

//define a table shape:
export const myTableFields = {
  field1: v.number(),
  field2: v.string()
};
//make the table 
export default defineTable(myTableFields);

//expose a partial update mutation
export default internalMutation({
  args: {
    id: v.id('myTable'),
    updates: v.object({
        field1: v.optional(v.number()),
        field2: v.optional(v.string())
    }),
  },
  async handler(ctx, args) {
    await ctx.db.patch(args.id, args.updates);
  },
});

//define a table shape:
export const myTableFields = {
  field1: v.number(),
  field2: v.string()
};
//make the table 
export default defineTable(myTableFields);

//expose a partial update mutation
export default internalMutation({
  args: {
    id: v.id('myTable'),
    updates: v.object({
        field1: v.optional(v.number()),
        field2: v.optional(v.string())
    }),
  },
  async handler(ctx, args) {
    await ctx.db.patch(args.id, args.updates);
  },
});

If I was typing args normally, I would use

Partial<...>

Partial<...>

to define this. Likewise, it would helpful to do

v.partial(myTableFields)

v.partial(myTableFields)

to not have to redefine each field in my mutation args.

Has there been any consideration to

Similar Threads